.,•* 


* 

f  "    "~      '      "i,....fr 

University  of  California. 

FROM    THK    UIWARY    OF 

DR.     FRANCIS     LIEBER, 
Profe.s-'or  of  History  and  Law  in  Columbia  College,  New  York. 


THK   GIFT   OF 

MICHAEL    REESE, 

(V  .5>z#  Francisco. 

18T3. 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


Library. 


CsIlf(,TI!J»- 


£fb^^ 


p 

¥ 


pa? 


BUIEF  EXAMINATION  AND  EXPOSITION 


OP    THE 


Iini;t0fietottion,fisitanb 

C_y     >v  (j  ^-^ 


IN  TIME  OF  PEACE. 


EXAMINED  ON  LEGAL  PRINCIPLES  AND  AUTHORITIES 


BY 

RICHARD    S.    COXE,  LL.  D. 

COUNSELLOR  AT   LAW. 


WASHINGTON: 

HENRY    POL  KIN  HORN,    PRINTER. 
1858. 


BftlEF  EXAMINATION  AND  EXPOSITION 


OP    THE 


fo  0f 


IN  TIME  OF  PEACE. 


EXAMINED  ON  LEGAL  PRINCIPLES  AND  AUTHORITIES 


BY 

RICHARD    S.    COXE,  LL.  D. 

COUNSELLOR  AT  LAW. 


WASHINGTON: 
HENRY    POL  KIN  HORN,    PRINTER. 

1858. 


NOTE. — This  article,  on  a  subject  of  deep  interest,  was  commenced  with 
the  simple  design  of  presenting,  perhaps  through  a  single  column  in  a  news- 
paper, a  view  of  the  purely  legal  principles  which  affect  one  of  the  most 
interesting  questions  which  now  subsist  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain.  It  has  swelled,  unexpectedly,  into  its  present  dimensions — 
large  when  compared  with  the  original  design,  small  when  estimated  by  the 
magnitude  and  importance  of  the  subject  discussed.  It  is  hoped  that  it  has 
been  treated  with  mildness  of  temper  and  courtesy  of  language,  and  that 
while  in  no  manner  disrespectful  to  Great  Britain,  it  will  confirm  Americans 
in  their  belief  that  our  country  has,  upon  this  interesting  subject,  advanced 
no  claim  or  pretension  not  perfectly  founded  in  and  well  sustained  by  the 
highest  authority,  and  which  we  never  can  or  will  surrender.  R.  S.  C. 


ON 


ight 


The  present  aspect  of  affairs  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  is  calculated  to  awaken  on  both  sides  the 
most  anxious  solicitude,  and  certainly  demands  the  most  se- 
rious consideration.  The  exercise,  by  the  cruisers  of  her 
Britannic  Majesty,  of  a  claim  of  right  to  detain  on  the  oceans 
American  vessels,  while  engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  a  law- 
ful voyage,  and  sailing  under  the  flag  of  their  own  country, 
in  a  time  of  profound  peace,  is  conceded  to  be  a  flagrant  out- 
rage under  any  circumstances.  To  do  this  in  the  seas,  so 
close  to  our  own  coast  as  the  narrow  passages  between  the 
several  West  India  Islands  and  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  has  at  least  the  appearance  of  superadding  indignity 
and  insult  to  wrong. 

It  is  not  sr.rprising,  then,  that  the  repeated  recurrence  of 
these  insulting  outrages  should  have  kindled  a  deep  feeling 
throughout  the  United  States,  or  that  some  of  our  citizens 
should,  under  the  strong  sensibility  to  a  supposed  wrong,  be 
disposed  at  once  to  retort  upon  the  offenders  with  the  alac- 
rity and  vigor  which  every  hostile  aggression,  authorised  or 
affirmed  by  a  foreign  power,  would  justly  receive.  Should 
Great  Britain  either  have  directed  these  proceedings,  or 
assume  the  responsibility  of  them  when  brought  to  her  no- 
tice by  our  Minister,  such  avowal  can  and  will  be  considered 
in  no  other  light  than  a  public  declaration  of  war.  For 
years  we  have  denied  that  any  nation  possesses  the  right 


claimed  and  exercised  by  the  cruisers  of  Great  Britain;  have 
refused  to  submit  to  even  a  modified  exercise  of  it  on  the  coast 
of  Africa,  as  a  means  of  repressing  the  slave-trade ;  and  have 
given  her  distinctly  to  understand  that  any  attempt  to  exer- 
cise it  will  be  resisted  by  force  of  arms.  "When,  therefore, 
under  such  circumstances,  after  such  previous  notification  of 
the  consequences  which  must  result,  any  government  directs 
or  sanctions  such  proceedings,  such  conduct  is  tantamount  to 
a  declaration  of  war,  and  must  be  followed  by  general  hos- 
tilities. 

No  formal  declaration  of  war  is  required  under  the  wrell 
recognised  law  of  nations.  (Every  hostile  act,  directed  or 
sanctioned  by  one  government  against  another,  is  an  act  of 
war,  and  places  the  two  nations  in  a  hostile  attitude.)  We, 
therefore,  await  the  response  from  England  with  anxiety, 
but  with  determination.  On  our  side,  a  war,  growing  out  of 
these  proceedings,  would  be  purely  defensive.  The  aggres- 
sions have  been  wanton,  deliberate,  premeditated.  They 
have  been  made  with  ample  notice  of  what  our  national  dig- 
nity, honor,  and  interests  demand.  They  have  been  purely 
aggressive— not  to  repel  any  injury  or  insult,  but  to  enforce 
against  us  a  claim  which  we,  denying  its  foundation  in  right? 
have  avowed  our  determination  to  resist  by  arms. 

It  is  important  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  should 
distinctly  apprehend  the  true  merits  of  a  controversy  which 
may  lead  to  such  results.  It  is  equally  unrighteous  to  enforce 
an  unjust  claim,  and  to  resist  or  negative  one  which  is  well 
founded.  If  the  claim  which  England  asserts  and  undertakes 
to  exercise  be  a  lawful  one,  even  a  defensive  war  on  our  side, 
to  prevent  such  exercise,  would  be  unjust.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  her  claim  has  no  foundation  in  right,  her  aggressive 
acts,  in  support  or  execution  of  it,  are  as  palpably  wrong. 
If,  then,  it  is  clear  that  the  justice  of  a  war  is,  in  no  degree, 
dependent  upon  the  question  whether  it  be  an  offensive  or  a 
defensive  one ;  if  to  assert  and  maintain  a  wrongful  claim, 
by  an  act  of  hostility,  be  highly  criminal,  to  repel  such  ag- 
gression cannot  but  be  righteous.  Independently  of  this 


obvious  truth,  it  may  further  be  observed  that,  when  one  na- 
tion asserts  a  right  which  another  denies,  the  ordinary  cour- 
tesy which  ought  always  to  subsist  between  equals  forbids 
the  idea  that  either  has  been  guilty  of  asserting  what  she 
knows  to  be  untenable,  but  requires  that  each  should  be  sup- 
posed honest  and  sincere  in  its  respective  opinion.  To  at- 
tempt by  force,  therefore,  to  compel  acquiescence  in  a  con- 
troverted claim,  is  discourteous  and  insulting.  It  carries 
with  it,  by  distinct  implication,  the  idea  that  the  United 
States,  in  denying  the  right  claimed  by  England,  is  not 
merely  wrong  in  refusing  to  admit  the  exercise  ot  this  as- 
serted right,  but  that  such  denial  is  not  made  bonafide,  and 
is  a  sheer  pretence,  dishonorable  as  well  as  false  in  principle. 
The  distinct  and  positive  assertion  of  the  American  doc- 
trine, which  recent  events  have  elicited  from  so  many  quar- 
ters, demonstrates  at  least  the  honesty  with  which  these 
views  are  entertained.  Men  of  the  highest  and  purest  char- 
acter— men  of  all  parties,  representing  every  variety  of  in- 
terest and  all  sections  of  our  country — men  most  averse  to 
any  war  in  general,  but  more  especially  to  one  with  Great 
Britain,  are  unanimous  in  their  opinions  and  resolves.  Their 
opinions  are  expressed  in  terms,  and  fortified  %  arguments, 
which,  at  least,  indicate  the  sincerity  with  which  they  are 
entertained.  Should  an  impartial  world  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion that  we  have  been  wrong  in  these  views,  it  is  hardly 
to  be  conceived  that  any  one  would  impute  the  error  to  any 
other  origin  than  the  fallibility  of  human  judgment.  This 
conclusion  alone  would  sufficiently  demonstrate  the  foul  and 
insulting  character  of  the  wrong  perpetrated  by  England, 
should  she  sanction  or  direct  the  continuance  of  the  acts  of 
which  we  complain.  Should  she  be  able  to  prove  that  we 
are  wrong  in  the  construction  we  have  given  to  the  law,  until 
she  also  shows  that  we  were  knowingly,  wilfully  wrong,  she 
will  not  have  vindicated  her  conduct.  The  avowal  of  a  de- 
termination to  resist  a  claim  believed  to  be  unjust,  honestly, 
publicly  made,  furnishes  no  pretext  for  a  resort  at  once  to 
force  to  establish  the  right  of  the  party  asserting  it. 


6 

Other  circumstances  exist  in  this  case.  Before  the  present 
occasion,  it  is  not  known  that  England  has  ever  at  any  one 
time  attempted,  by  act  or  deed,  to  enforce  this  assumed  right. 
Upon  this  subject  it  seems  that  an  error  has  existed  on  all 
sides.  It  is  alleged  that  this  right  of  visit  and  search  was 
one  of  the  prominent  causes  which  led  to  the  war  of  1812. 
This,  it  is  apprehended,  is  a  great  mistake,  and  it  is  import- 
ant that  it  should  be  corrected.  Almost  without  intermission, 
from  the  time  of  the  formation  of  our  existing  political  insti- 
tutions, until  the  year  1812,  the  two  nations  had  never  occu- 
pied the  position  they  now  hold,  both  being  at  peace.  Du- 
ring the  entire  period,  from  the  commencement  of  the  wars 
originating  in  the  French  revolution,  in  1793,  until  1812,  we 
were  at  peace  and  England  at  war,  with  the  exception  of  the 
brief  interval  succeeding  the  treaty  of  Amiens.  As  a  bellige- 
rent, the  right  of  England  to  visit  and  search  was  never  con- 
troverted by  the  United  States.  This  right  of  visitation  and 
search  is  one  conceded  by  all  the  writers  on  the  law  of  nations 
to  a  belligerent ;  and  although  for  a  time  controverted  by 
some  of  the  northern  powers  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  at 
least  to  the  full  extent  claimed,  or  by  them  attempted  to  be 
modified  and  limited,  it  has  never  been  denied  by  any  jurist 
or  statesman  of  this  country. 

Our  difficulty  with  England  stood  on  a  wholly  distinct 
ground.  "While  we  recognized  the  belligerent  right  of  visita- 
tion and  search  of  merchant  vessels  upon  the  high  seas,  we 
insisted  that  this  being  a  right  originating  in  and  deriving 
its  very  existence  from  the  law  of  nations,  it  was  necessarily 
limited  and  restricted  to  objects  over  which  that  law  had 
cognizance.  That  law,  so  far  as  relates  to  this  subject,  had 
reference  to  the  relative  rights  and  duties  of  belligerents  and 
neutrals.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  merely  municipal 
laws  or  institutions  of  any  particular  nation.  It  authorised 
this  visitation  and  search  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
whether  the  vessel  or  her  cargo  was  neutral  or  hostile; 
whether  there  were  on  board  contraband  goods,  or  persons 
who  were  enemies.  To  this  extent  we  always  acknowledged 


the  right  of  a  belligerent  to  examine,  and  the  corresponding 
obligation  of  the  neutral  to  submit  to  such  an  examination. 
Admitting  this  right,  we  consequently  acquiesced  in  the  legal 
conclusion  involved  in  it,  viz  :  that  the  right  of  visitation  and 
search  being  a  clear,  undeniable,  belligerent  right,  resistance 
to  it  was  a  wrong  which  would  justify  its  enforcement  by 
capture  and  condemnation  as  prize  of  the  offending  party. 

These  principles,  not  admitting  of  doubt  or  dispute  on 
either  side,  have  never  been  the  subject  of  controversy. 
Our  difficulty  with  England,  anterior  to  the  war  of  1812,  was 
of  an  entirely  different  character,  involving  questions  to 
which  distant  allusion  has  been  made  in  the  foregoing  re- 
marks, but  which  are  now  to  be  more  particularly  noticed. 

As  has  been  said,  the  American  government  has  uniformly 
recognized  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  as  a  belligerent 
right,  authorised  and  sanctioned  by  the  law  of  nations,  and, 
therefore,  to  find  in  that  law  the  rules  which  justify  its  exer- 
cise,'the  subjects  upon  which  it  is  to  operate,  the  bounds  to 
which  it  rightfully  extends,  and  the  restrictions  by  which  it 
is  to  be  limited.  The  British  authorities,  on  the  other  hand, 
insisted  that  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  being,  as  all 
allowed,  a  belligerent  right,  entitled  their  cruisers  to  board 
a  merchant  vessel ;  and  being  once  rightfully  on  board,  their 
officers  might  continue  the  search,  not  only  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  whether  the  vessel  or  her  cargo  was  neutral, 
and  whether  she  had  on  board  anything,  or  had  done  any  act 
which  injured  the  rights  of  the  belligerent,  but  whether  she 
had  also  on  board  any  persons  who,  under  the  local  or  muni- 
cipal law  of  England,  owed  allegiance  to  her,  or  were  bound 
to  military  service  under  her.  This  claim  obviously  involved 
some  most  serious  questions.  The  one  was  whether  the  bel- 
ligerent right  of  visitation  and  search,  being  derived  exclu- 
sively from  the  law  of  nations,  was  not  limited  to  subjects 
and  objects  over  which  that  law  could  operate.  Second : 
"Whether  this  right  could  legitimately  be  made  the  instrument, 
or  afford  the  facilities  for  the  enforcement  of  any  purely 
municipal  laws  of  the  country  of  the  belligerent.  Third: 


Whether,  when  the  municipal  laws  of  the  belligerent  which 
"claimed  the  right,  and  those  of  the  neutral  upon  whom  it  was 
to  be  exercised,  were  in  antagonism,  the  former  or  the  latter 
should  prevail  on  board  the  neutral  vessel.  Upon  these 
points  the  two  governments  differed.  Independently  of  the 
argument  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  on  the  abstract 
question  of  right,  the  abuses  and  outrages,  the  insults  and 
manifold  personal  injuries  resulting  from  the  actual  exercise 
of  the  right  claimed  by  England,  were  insisted  upon  and 
strongly  urged.  It  was  shown  that,  under  color  of  this  bel- 
ligerent right  of  visit  and  search,  the  most  gross  outrages  had 
been  perpetrated,  for  which  no  or  a  very  insufficient  com- 
pensation had  been  made  to  the  injured  party.  It  was  fur- 
ther insisted  on  that  this  right,  to  whatever  extent  it  might 
be  justified  or  allowed  by  the  law  of  nations,  conferred  no 
authority  to  enforce  the  peculiar  laws  of  the  belligerent 
power,  and  therefore  none,  under  any  circumstances,  to  seize 
even  an  acknowledged  subject  of  the  British  crown.  That 
no  individual  could  be  arrested  or  taken  on  board  an  Ameri- 
can vessel  for  a  violation  of  English  law,  or  to  compel  obedi- 
ence to  English  institutions ;  and  still  further,  that,  as  the 
United  States,  under  her  constitution  and  laws,  allowed  the 
subjects  or  citizens  of  any  and  every  foreign  government  to 
become  citizens  of  this  country,  and  as  such  to  be  entitled  to 
all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  protection  afforded  to  those 
who  were  native  born,  the  rights  of  such  were  as  perfect  on 
board  our  own  vessels  as  on  our  own  territories.  Thus  we 
denied  in  toto  the  right  of  impressment  on  board  an  Ameri- 
can ship. 

Such  were  the  matters  in  controversy  between  Great  Bri- 
tain and  the  United  States  preceding  the  war  of  1812.  If 
this  is  a  correct  representation  of  the  case,  it  will  appear  that, 
during  the  whole  of  the  discussions  which  preceded  that  war, 
there  never  occurred  an  occasion  for  England  to  advance  the 
doctrine  of  the  right  of  search  or  of  visitation,  or  simply  visit, 
as  it  has  been  recently  designated  by  some  English  authori- 
ties, which  will  be  hereafter  alluded  to,  in  time  of  peace. 


9 

Up  to  the  year  1812,  therefore,  there  never  had  been  as- 
serted by  the  British  government  or  by  any  writer  of  any 
country,  that  such  a  right  existed — certainly  it  was  never 
carried  into  practice.  From  the  termination  of  hostilities  in 
Europe  and  America  in  1814  and  1815,  it  has  never  been 
exercised  by  any  power,  unless  specially  provided  for  in  some 
treaty.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  supposed  that  England  means, 
at  this  late  day,  to  claim  the  privilege  of  interpolating  this 
new  doctrine  into  the  code  of  national  law ;  but  it  is  to  be 
hoped  and  expected  that  she  will  disavow  these  offensive 
proceedings,  and  formally  renounce  the  odious  pretension 
upon  which  they  rest. 

It  is  certainly  true,  that  Great  Britain  has  formally  pro- 
mulgated her  views  on  the  subject,  and  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  has,  on  the  contrary,  as  distinctly 
denied  their  soundness.  It  is  not  the  design  of  these  remarks 
to  dwell  minutely  on  the  diplomatic  discussion  of  the  subject. 
A  very  brief  reference  to  this  aspect  of  the  case  will  be  all 
that  the  occasion  requires. 

It  is  admitted  by  the  representatives  of  both  nations,  that, 
in  the  negotiations  even  as  late  as  1841,  this  point  was  not 
discussed  between  Mr.  Webster  and  Lord  Ashburton  ;  nor 
did  the  treaty  concluded  by  those  gentlemen,  in  any  way 
distinctly  touch  it.  It  was,  it  is  believed,  first  presented 
diplomatically  in  1841,  in  a  correspondence  between  our 
Minister,  Mr.  Stevenson,  and  the  British  government.  In 
January,  1843,  however,  a  despatch  from  Lord  Aberdeen  was 
communicated  by  Mr.  Fox,  the  British  Minister  to  this  coun- 
try, to  the  Department  of  State.  That  despatch  was  founded 
upon  an  interpretation  which  had  been  placed  upon  a  brief 
paragraph  in  the  last  preceding  annual  message  of  the  Presi- 
dent, to  the  two  Houses  of  Congress.  "While  commenting  upon 
the  construction  which  this  paragraph  had  received  in  Eng- 
land, his  lordship  takes  occasion  distinctly  to  avow,  that  his 
government  claimed  the  right  to  visit  merchant  ships  for 
certain  purposes,  in  time  of  peace,  and  that  this  right  it  can 
never  surrender. 

2  ' 


10 

Mr.  Webster,  in  an  elaborate  despatch  addressed  to  Mr. 
Everett  in  March,  1843,  states,  with  great  clearness,  the 
British  claim,  the  antagonistic  doctrine  maintained  by  this- 
country,  and  discusses  the  matter  at  issue  with  his  wonted 
ability.— (6  Webster's  Works,  pp.  329,  &e.)  The  full  refer- 
ence which  has  been  made  to  this  document,  and  the  ample 
quotations  from  it  in  the  recent  discussions  in  Congress, 
dispense  with  the  necessity  for  further  allusion  to  it  on  this 
occasion. 

Even  up  to  a  very  recent  period  the  question  may  be  re- 
garded, so  far  as  the  two  governments  were  concerned,  as- 
simply  an  abstract  one.  The  one  party  had  asserted  a  right,, 
but  had,  as  yet,  never  attempted  to  enforce  it  ;  the  other, 
while  controverting  the  validity  of  the  claim,  had  never  been 
required  to  resort  to  any  act  of  resistance.  Till  within  the 
last  few  months,  such  has  continued  to  be  the  position  of  the 
case.  Unfortunately  its  aspect  has  been  changed  by  officers 
in  the  British  service,  and  it  remains  to  be  ascertained  whether 
the  offensive  proceedings  of  these  functionaries  have  been 
under  governmental  instructions,  or  will  receive  govern- 
mental approval. 

The  point  at  issue,  as  is  obvious,  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  law  of  nations.  That  law  settles  the  right  one  way  or 
the  other,  and  if  its  authority  is  repudiated,  it  must  be  settled 
by  arms.  It  becomes  us,  therefore,  to  examine  the  question 
by  this  standard,  and  if,  under  that  code,  we  are  shown  to  be 
right,  we  can,  with  entire  confidence  in  the  justice  of  our 
cause,  resolve  at  all  hazards  to  maintain  it. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  extend  this  examination  to  any 
great  length,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  case  does  not  re- 
quire a  protracted  discussion.  I  shall  content  myself  with 
citations  from,  and  comments  upon  a  few  books,  the  author- 
ity of  which  has  heretofore  been  held,  by  both  parties,  in  the 
highest  respect. 

As  no  one  writer  of  eminence,  unless  it  may  be  one  here- 
after to  be  commented  upon,  no  judicial  decision,  no  one 
distinguished  jurist  has  been  cited  as  maintaining  the  Eng- 


11 

lish  doctrine,  we  are  absolved  from  the  necessity  ot  comparing 
and  weighing  the  relative  value  and  authority  of  different 
expositors  of  the  same  code.  It  will,  however,  appear  that 
the  subject  has  not  escaped  the  notice  of  distinguished  and 
accomplished  jurists  inboth  countries ;  but  with  the  single 
exception  alluded  to,  and  which  will  be  more  fully  noticed 
in  the  sequel,  all  have  concurred. 

The  first  authority  to  which  reference  need  be  made,  is  the 
case  of  two  Spanish  vessels,  before  Sir  William  Scott,  in 
1803,  (5  Rob.  Adm.,  36.)  Condemnation  of  these  vessels  was 
sought  on  the  ground  of  their  having  made  resistance  to  the 
belligerent  right  of  search,  attempted  by  an  English  cruiser 
during  the  war  which  had  recently  broken  out  between 
Great  Britain  and  France.  The  pendency  of  the  war  was, 
of  course,  uncontroverted,  the  belligerent  right  of  search  not 
denied,  the  actual  resistance  to  its  exercise  unquestioned,  the 
usual  consequences  of  such  resistance  conceded.  Notwith. 
standing  all  these  grounds  to  justify  condemnation,  restitu- 
tion was  decreed.  The  learned  judge  held,  that  "it  must  be 
shown,  in  the  first  instance,  that  the  vessel  had  reasonable 
ground  to  be  satisfied  of  the  existence  of  war,  otherwise  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  neutral  character,  nor  any  foundation  for 
the  several  duties  which  the  law  of  nations  imposes  on  that 
character.  It  is,  therefore,  a  very  material  circumstance  in 
this  case,  that  at  the  time  of  sailing,  no  war  was  supposed  to 
exist,  in  the  knowledge  of  those  who  commanded  these  ves- 
sels. They  sailed  in  perfect  ignorance  of  war,  and,  conse- 
quently, unconscious  that  they  had  any  neutral  duties  to 
perform."  "The  whole  of  this  proceeding  is,  surely,  as  dif- 
ferent as  possible  from  a  case  of  criminal  resistance  to  a  lawful 
cruiser;  since  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  vessels 
knew,  either  that  the  assailants  were  commissioned  cruisers, 
or  that  they  themselves  had  any  neutral  duties  to  discharge." 
"If  the  acts  of  resistance  had  been  much  stronger  than  they 
appear  to  have  been  in  the  conduct  of  these  parties,  they 
would  have  been  acts  of  innocent  misapprehension  only." 

If,  then,  the  resistance  to  an  act  of  search  by  a  belligerent 


12 

cruiser  involved  no  criminality,  and  consequently  did  not 
subject  the  vessels  to  condemnation,  because  of  ignorance 
that  war  existed,  and  therefore,  that  belligerent  rights  and 
neutral  duties  existed,  although  actual  war  existed,  and  the 
assailant  was  a  commissioned  cruiser  of  a  belligerent  nation, 
a  fortiori,  would  it  follow  that,  when  in  fact  no  war  exists, 
and  there  could  be  no  belligerent  right  of  search  or  neutral 
obligation  to  submit  to  it,  such  resistance  would  be  perfectly 
justifiable  and  absolutely  rightful.* 

It  ought  further  to  be  observed  that  this  case,  if  recognized 
as  authority,  as  clearly  annihilates  the  recent  English  preten- 
sion, that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  right  of  visitation 
and  search,  and  a  right  of  visit.  It  appears  from  the  judg- 
ment pronounced  by  Sir  William  Scott,  that  "when  the  Brit- 
ish boats  approached  the  Spanish  vessels,  on  being  asked 
what  they  wanted,  they  answered  to  come  on  board ;  to  which 
it  was  replied  from  the  Spanish  vessels,  that  if  they  had  any- 
thing to  say,  they  might  speak ;  certainly  it  was  not  necessary 
for  the  purpose  of  information  that  they  should  have  gone  on 
loard"  "  Nothing  more  passed  than  that  the  request  to  come 
on  board  was  refused." 

English  lawyers  and  English  courts,  if  not  British  statesmen,. 
bow  with  reverence  to  the  opinions  of  Sir  William  Scott,  upon 
questions  originating  in  the  law  of  nations  ;  and  if  the  same 
paramount  authority  is  not  yielded  implicitly  to  his  judgment, 
in  other  countries,  it  is  because  it  is  believed,  and  upon  sub- 
stantial grounds,  that  even  he  yielded  too  much  to  the  polit- 
ical and  temporary  views  of  his  own  government,  in  his  ad- 
ministration of  public  law. 

When  this  eminent  judge  pronounced  this  judgment,  he 
entertained  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  the  duties  of  those 
tribunals  which  administered  the  law  of  nations,  which  are 
so  eloquently  and  beautifully  expressed  in  the  famous  case 
of  the  Swedish  Convoy,  (The  Maria,  1  Kob.  350,)  and  which 
on  every  account  deserves  to  be  quoted  and  remembered. 
"  In  forming  my  judgment,"  he  observes,  UI  trust  that  it  has 
not  escaped  my  anxious  recollection  for  one  moment,  what 


13 

it  is  that  the  duty  of  my  station  calls  for  from  me:  namely, 
to  consider  myself  here,  not  to  deliver  occasional  and  shift- 
ing opinions,  to  serve  present  purposes  of  particular  national 
interests,  but  to  administer,  with  indifference,  that  justice 
which  the  law  of  nations  holds  out,  without  distinction,  to 
independent  States,  some  happening  to  be  neutral  and  some 
belligerent.  The  seat  of  judicial  authority  is  indeed  locally 
here  in  the  belligerent  country,  according  to  the  known  law 
and  practice  of  nations ;  but  the  law  itself  has  no  locality. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  person  who  sits  here  to  determine  the 
question  exactly  as  he  would  determine  the  same  question  if 
sitting  at  Stockholm ;  to  assert  no  pretensions  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain  which  he  would  not  allow  to  Sweden  in  the 
same  circumstances,  and  to  impose  no  duties  on  Sweden 
which  he  would  not  admit  to  belong  to  Great  Britain  in  'the 
same  character.  If,  therefore,  I  mistake  the  law  in  this 
matter,  I  mistake  that  which  I  consider  as  the  universal  law 
upon  the  question  ;  a  question  regarding  one  of  the  most 
important  rights  of  belligerent  nations  relatively  to  neutrals." 

In  another  case,  (the  Flad  Oyen,  1  Kob.  142,)  Sir  Wm. 
Scott  expresses  similar  views.  Mentioning  a  pretension  of 
the  French  government,  as  an  attempt  made  for  the  first 
time  in  the  world,  in  the  year  1799,  he  adds,  "  In  my  opinion, 
if  it  could  be  shown  that,  regarding  mere  speculative  general 
principles,  such  a  condemnation  ought  to  be  deemed  suffi- 
cient, that  would  not  be  enough,  more  must  be  proved ;  it 
must  be  shown  that  it  is  conformable  to  the  usage  and  prac- 
tice of  nations."  "  A  great  part  of  the  law  of  nations  stands 
on  no  other  foundation.  It  is  introduced,  indeed,  by  general 
principles  ;  but  it  travels  with  those  general  principles  only 
to  a  certain  extent,  and  if  it  stops  there  you  are  not  at  liberty 
to  go  further,  and  to  say  that  more  general  speculation  will 
bear  you  out  in  a  further  progress." 

The  manner  and  language  in  which  these  great  doctrines 
were  enunciated  had  not  only  a  great  influence  in  elevatiug 
the  reputation  of  the  individual  judge  from  whose  lips  they 
flowed,  but  also  to  inspire  among  other  nations  an  entire 


14 

confidence  in  the  ability,  integrity,  and  impartiality  with 
which  the  law  was  administered  in  the  prize  courts  of  Great 
Britain.  The  doctrines  themselves  were  not  new — similar 
language  had  been  employed  by  distinguished  English  jurists 
in  the  celebrated  answer  of  Great  Britain  to  the  Prussian 
memorial,  more  than  half  a  century  earlier.  That  document 
was,  however,  a  legal  argument  on  behalf  of  a  party  in  inter- 
est. On  this  last  occasion  it  was  an  official  judicial  exposi- 
tion of  the  law  ;  the  well  considered,  deliberate  judgment  of 
the  ablest  judge  who  had  ever  presided  in  one  of  the  most 
august  tribunals  the  world  has  ever  seen. 

One  other  citation  we  shall  venture  to  make  from  the  same 
distinguished  authority,  on  an  occasion  when  this  great  man 
had  practically,  at  least  to  some  extent,  abandoned,  or  at 
least  swerved  from  his  first  and  most  highly  approved 
opinions.  In  the  case  of  the  Fox,  in  1811,  he  thus  expressed 
himself:  "It  is  strictly  true,  that  by  the  constitution  of  this 
country,  the  king  in  council  possesses  legislative  rights  over 
this  court,  and  has  power  to  issue  orders  and  instructions 
which  it  is  bound  to  obey  and  enforce ;  and  these  constitute 
the  written  law  of  this  court.  These  two  propositions,  that 
the  court  is  bound  to  administer  the  laws  of  nations,  and 
that  it  is  bound  to  enforce  the  king's  orders  in  council,  are 
not  at  all  inconsistent  with  each  other,  because  those  orders 
and  instructions  are  presumed  to  conform  themselves,  under 
the  given  circumstances,  to  the  principles  of  its  unwritten 
law."  "The  constitution  of  this  country  relatively  to  the 
legislative  power  of  the  king  in  council,  is  analogous  to  that 
of  the  courts  of  common  law,  relatively  to  that  of  the  parlia- 
ment of  this  kingdom."  Yet,  in  the  very  same  opinion,  he 
thus  avows  his  adherence  to  his  former  docrines:  "This 
court,"  he  says,  "is  bound  to  administer  the  law  of  nations  to 
the  subjects  of  other  countries,  in  the  different  relations  in 
which  they  may  be  placed  towards  this  country  and  its 
government  This  is  what  other  countries  have  a  right  to 
demand  for  their  subjects,  and  to  complain  if  they  receive  it 
not.  This  is  its  unwritten  law,  evidenced  in- the  course  of 


15 

its  decisions,  and  collected  from  the  common  usage  of  civi- 
lized States." 

It  would  be  painful  to  give  utterance  to  all  the  comments 
which  such  an  obvious  antagonism  of  views  might  warrant. 
To  some  extent,  they  have  been  criticized  in  able  comments 
by  English  authorities,  some  of  which  will  be  found  in  the 
19th  vol.  Edinb.  Keview,  p.  309,  &c. 

On  the  present  occasion,  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  a 
few  brief  comments. 

1.  The  presumption  that  the  orders  in  council  have  been 
and  will  be  in  precise  conformity  with  the  unwritten  laws  of 
nations,  is,  it  seems  to  our  minds,  a  palpable  absurdity.     If 
they  should  neither  go  beyond  nor  fall  short  of  the  unwritten 
law  of  nations,  "  collected  from  the  common  usage  of  civil- 
ized States,"  then  they  are  manifestly  altogether  supereroga- 
tory.    They  clearly  cannot  indicate  what  is  or  what  can  be 
collected  from  that  common  usage.     If  they  add  anything 
to  it  or  detract  anything  from  it,  they  do  not  conform  to  it 
as  expounders  of  the  general  law,  the  foundations  of  which 
rest,  not  only  as  to  its  general  principles,  but  as  to  their 
application  to  particular  cases,  and  their  modification  under 
particular  circumstances,  on  "the  common  usage  of  civilized 
nations,"  to  employ  the  language  of  Sir  Win.  Scott  himself, 
in  the  opinion  last  cited,  the  monarch  of  England  has  no 
right  to  attribute  to  himself  the  character  of  a  legal  exposi- 
tor— whose  expositions  are  to  be  recognized  in  courts  admin- 
istering these  laws. 

2.  If  the  British  government  may  claim  this  prerogative, 
upon  every  principle  of  the  laws  of  nations,  the  same  right 
of  interpretation  must  belong  to  every  other  government. 
It  is  unnecessary  here  to  dilate  upon  the  consequences  which 
must  flow  from  the  practical  adoption  of  this  theory.     Each 
nation,  being  its  own  interpreter  of  that  law,  by  which  all 
are  in  theory  equally  bound,  it  is  manifest,  that  it  will  con- 
stantly vary  with  times,  occasions,  and  countries.     It  can  no 
longer  be  said  of  it,  non  est  alia  JZomce  alia  athenis.     In 
fact,  it  will  cease  to  be  law  in  any  sense  or  to  any.  purpose. 


16 

3.  The  doctrine  thus  enounced  is  in  flat  contradiction  of 
the  doctrine  laid  down  by  the  same  eminent  judge  in  the 
case  of  the  Flad  Oyer,  already  quoted.     There  he  insisted 
that  the  attempt  by  the  French  government  in  1799  to  intro- 
duce a  new  doctrine  into  public  law,  on  mere  general  specu- 
lative principles,  was  irregular,  that  "more  must  be  proved; 
it  must  be  shown  that  it  is  conformable  to  the  usage  and 
practice  of  nations."     No  attempt  has  ever  been  made  to 
justify  the  British  orders  in  council  on  this  ground. 

4.  The  analogy, by  which  Sir  Wm.  Scott  attempts  to  justify 
his  departure  from  his  former  opinions,  is  by  no  means  the 
least  objectionable  part  of  this  opinion.     He  asserts  that  the 
admiralty  court  owes  the  same  obedience  to  the  orders  of  the 
king  in  council  as  the  civil  courts  do  to  the  acts  of  Parlia- 
ment,  each   exercising  and   possessing  complete  legislative 
power;  and  that  the  presumption  is  that  all  these  orders 
and  instructions  are   and  will   be  in  accordance  wi'h  the 
unwritten    law,  the    usages    of    civilized  nations.       These 
are  novel  and  monstrous  doctrines ;  to  an  American  mind 
they  appear  equally  absurd  and  contradic-tory.     No  lawyer 
in  England  ever  advanced  the  idea  that  Parliament  only 
possessed  the  faculty  and  authority  of    an  interpreter   and 
expounder    of    the    common    or    unwritten    la"w    of    the 
land.      It   unquestionably   does,   under   the    institutions   of 
that   country,   possess,  and  occasionally,  but  unfrequently, 
exercise  this  limited  power  of  interpreting  and  expounding 
the  common  law.      Such  declaratory  statutes,  as  they  are 
familiarly  and  technically  called,  are  very  unusual,  and  even 
in  relation  to  them,  they  are  held,  by  all  English  jurists  and 
courts,  to   be   purely  and  exclusively  prospective  in  their 
operation      They  have  never  assumed  the  power,  at  least  in 
modern  times,  of  determining  how  the  common  law  ought 
now  or  should  have  been  formerly  understood ;  they  only 
declare  how  it  shall  thereafter  be  interpreted.     The  British 
Parliament  possesses  and  constantly  exercises  its  unquestioned 
power  of  changing  the  common  law  at  its  pleasure,  to  meet 
the  varying  exigencies  of  the  times,  to  carry  out  its  own 


17 

views  of  expediency  or  policy,  and  its  acts  supersede  and 
annul  all  that  is  in  the  common  law  at  variance  with  the 
statute.  ISTo  presumption  ever  exists,  much  less  to  the  ex- 
tent of  determining  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Parliament,  that 
its  provisions  are  in  accordance  with  and  only  designed  to 
interpret  the  common  law.  The  avowed  object  is  to  change 
that  law.  Indeed,  some  writers  on  English  jurisprudence 
have  contended  that  the  common  law  itself  originated  m  and 
derives  its  authority  from  acts  of  Parliament,  now  lost  or 
obsolete. 

If  such  analogy  as  Sir  Wm.  Scott  suggests  has  any  sub- 
stantial existence,  and  if  the  argument  he  deduces  from  it 
possesses  any  weight,  it  must  conduct  to  conclusions  which 
that  eminent  man  had  too  much  sagacity  not  to  see,  but 
which  he  had  not  the  temerity  to  enounce.  It  asserts,  sub- 
stantially, that  the  British  crown  possesses  the  supreme  and 
absolute  authority  to  interpolate,  at  any  time,  and  under  any 
circumstances,  such  new  doctrines  and  principles  as  may  suit 
its  present  views  and  policy  into  the  law  of  nations,  under 
color  of  interpreting,  expounding,  or  applying  it.  Indeed, 
Sir  Wm.  seems,  in  two  memorable  instances,  to  have  sanc- 
tioned this  practical  result.  In  reference  to  the  doctrine  of 
blockade,  as  well  as  on  the  subject  of  the  orders  in  council, 
his  later  decisions,*  utterly  at  variance  with  those  he  had 
formerly  pronounced,  can  only  be  justified  on  the  ground  of 
this  monstrous  heresy.  A  power  to  give  an  authoritative 
interpretation  of  a  law,  and  especially  to  direct  its  applica- 
tion to  particular  cases,  not  previously  comprehended  in  its 
terms  or  recognized  by  general  usage,  necessarily  assumes, 
either  the  legislative  authority  to  enact  or  the  judicial  power 
to  determine  questions  arising  under  it,  or  as  in  the  instances 
cited  exercises  both  functions. 

It  is  apprehended  that  the  complete  vindication  of  the 
American  doctrine,  upon  the  subject  now  under  discussion, 
might  safely  be  rested  upon  the  grounds  already  presented. 
No  one  authority  has  been  exhibited  in  contradiction  of  it ; 
no  one  adjudication  affirming  the  views  of  the  British  govern- 


18 

ment ;  no  one  indication  of  the  usage  of  nations  in  conformity 
with  it,  although  the  challenge  has  been  repeatedly  given 
to  produce  one.  Until  the  last  few  months,  no  one  actual 
exercise  of  the  right  as  claimed  even  by  England  herself  has 
been  intimated ;  and,  finally,  it  has  been  shown  that  her  pre- 
tension is  deficient  in  every  characteristic  which  ought  to 
distinguish  a  principle  of  national  and  universal  law.  On 
the  general  doctrines  expressed  by  her  own  highest  authori- 
ties, diplomatic,  and  in  her  legislature,  or  special  adj  udication 
made  by  her  highest  tribunals,  the  claim  now  advanced  is- 
wholly  unwarranted. 

It  may  be  urged  that  this  is  still  but  negative  proof,  and 
to  some  extent  this  is  conceded.  What  stronger  proof,  how- 
ever, need  be  exhibited  in  resisting  a  claim  than  that  which 
is  negative?  One  party  asserts  a  right;  it  is  denied  by  the 
other.  The  former  holds  the  affirmative  and  is  bound  to 
support  his  pretension.  He  who  denies  may  rest  upon  the 
simple  denial,  without  more,  until  such  proof  is  exhibited. 
We  assert  that  England  has  shown  no  evidence  of  any  consent 
or  any  usage  of  nations  in  general,  sustaining  her  claim. 
This  assertion  remains  uncontradicted.  If  erroneous,  the 
error  has  not  yet  been  exposed ;  the  gauntlet  thrown  down 
has  not  been  taken  up. 

In  these  observations  we  have  advanced  further  in  the 
discussion.  It  has  been  shown,  at  least  till  our  assertion  is 
denied,  and  proved  to  be  incorrect,  that  no  such  doctrine  as 
that  now  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  English  proceedings,  has 
any  foundation  in  the  law  of  nations,  and  that  it  is  altogether 
of  recent  origin,  even  with  herself,  that  the  principle  has 
never  been  maintained  by  any  writer  of  authority,  either  in 
her  own  or  in  any  other  country. 

We  now  go  further.  The  next  case  to  which  reference 
need  be  made,  among  the  decisions  of  Sir  Wm.  Scott,  is  that 
of  Le  Louis,  reported  2  Dodson,  210.  This  is,  in  its  connec- 
tion with  the  present  subject,  the  most  important  case  to  be 
found  in  the  judicial  annals  of  England.  It  occurred  in  the 
year  181Y,  It  was  elaborately  argued  by  the  most  distin- 


19 

guished  advocates  at  the  bar  of  the  Court  of  Admiralty,  and 
it  elicited,  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  as  well  as  the  bench, 
proofs  of  the  most  laborious  research,  as  well  as  the  highest 
powers  of  reasoning. 

The  Le  Louis  was  a  French  vessel,  captured  by  an  English 
cruiser  in  January,  1816,  near  the  coast  of  Africa,  and  was 
supposed  to  be  a  slaver.  It  was  a  period  of  peace.  An  at- 
tempt had  been  made  to  visit  and  search  her.  She  resisted, 
and  a  conflict  ensued,  which  resulted  in  the  loss  of  several 
lives  on  each  side.  A  decree  of  condemnation  on  several 
distinct  grounds  had  passed  in  the  Yice  Admiralty  Court  of 
Sierra  Leone,  and  that  judgment  was  brought  before  Sir  "Win. 
Scott  for  review.  One  of  the  principal  points  in  the  case, 
and  one  of  prominent  importance,  involved  the  questions  of 
the  right  of  a  British  cruiser  to  visit  and  search  foreign  ves- 
sels on  the  high  seas,  in  time  of  peace,  on  the  ground  of  her 
being  employed  in  the  slave-trade,  and  the  right  of  the  ship 
thus  visited  to  resist  the  attempt  by  force.  Dr.  Lushington, 
(p.  216,)  and  Dr.  Dodson,  (p.  226,  &c.,)  denied,  in  the  most 
peremptory  manner,  the  existence  of  the  right  of  visit  and 
search  in  time  of  peace,  and  challenged  their  learned  oppo- 
nents to  cite  one  judicial  decision,  or  one  authoritative  dic- 
tum, to  sustain  such  a  claim.  ~No  such  authority  was  pro- 
duced. In  the  judgment,  Sir  Wm.  Scott  employs  this  lan- 
guage :  "  Assuming  the  fact,  which  is  indistinctly  proved, 
that  there  was  a  demand  and  a  resistance,  producing  the 
deplorable  results  here  described,  I  think  that  the  natural 
order  of  things  compels  me  to  inquire,  first,  whether  the 
party  who  demanded  had  a  right  to  search ;  for,  if  not,  not 
only  was  the  resistance  to  it  lawful,  but  likewise  the  very 
fact  on  which  the  other  ground  of  condemnation  rests  is  to- 
tally removed.  For  if  no  right  to  visit  and  search,  then  no 
ulterior  right  of  seizing  and  bringing  in  and  proceeding  to 
adjudication,  &e."  Upon  the  first  question,  whether  the 
right  to  search  exists  in  time  of  peace,  I  have  to  observe  two 
principles  of  public  law  are  generally  recognized,  as  funda- 
mental. One  is  the  perfect  equality  and  entire  indepen- 


20 

dence  of  all  distinct  States.  Relative  magnitude  creates  no 
distinction  of  right ;  relative  imbecility,  whether  permanent 
or  casual,  gives  no  additional  right  to  the  more  powerful 
neighbor;  and  any  advantage  seized  upon  that  ground  is 
mere  usurpation.  This  is  the  great  foundation  of  public  law, 
which  it  mainly  concerns  the  peace  of  mankind,  both  in  their 
politic  and  private  capacities,  to  preserve  inviolate.  The 
second  is,  that  all  nations  being  equal,  all  have  an  equal 
right  to  the  uninterrupted  use  of  the  unappropriated  parts 
of  the  ocean  for  their  navigation.  In  places  where  no  local 
authority  exists,  where  the  subjects  of  all  States  meet  upon 
a  footing  of  entire  equality  and  independence,  no  one  State, 
or  any  of  its  subjects,  has  a  right  to  assume  or  exercise  au- 
thority over  the  subjects  of  another.  I  can  find  no  authority 
that  gives  the  right  of  interruption  to  the  navigation  of  States 
in  amity  upon  the  high  seas,  excepting  that  which  the  rights 
of  war  gives  to  both  belligerents  against  neutrals.  This  right, 
incommodious  as  its  exercise  may  occasionally  be  to  those 
who  are  subjected  to  it,  has  been  fully  established  in  the  le- 
gal practice  of  nations,  having  for  its  foundation  the  necessi- 
ties of  self-defence,  in  preventing  the  enemy  from  being 
supplied  with  the  instruments  of  war,  and  from  having  his 
means  of  annoyance  augmented  by  the  advantages  of  mari- 
time commerce" — pp.  240-41 .  "  At  present,  under  the  law  as 
now  generally  understood  and  practiced,  no  nation  can  exer- 
cise a  right  of  visitation  and  search  upon  the  common  and 
unappropriated  parts  of  the  sea,  save  only  on  the  belligerent 
claim.  If  it  be  asked  why  the  right  of  search  does  not  exist 
in  time  of  peace  as  well  as  in  war,  the  answer  is  prompt : 
that  it  has  not  the  same  foundation  on  which  alone  it  is  tole- 
rated in  war — the  necessities  of  self-defence.  They  introduced 
it  in  war,  and  practice  has  established  it.  No  such  necessi- 
ties have  introduced  it  in  peace,  and  no  such  practice  has 
established  it"-^>.  245.  In  page  225,  Sir  Wm  Scott  adverts 
to  a  very  interesting  fact,  having  an  important  bearing  upon 
the  question  under  consideration;  he  says,  "The  project  of 
the  treaty  proposed  by  Great  Britain  to  France,  in  1815,  is, 


21 

*  that  permission  should  be  reciprocally  given  by  each  nation 
to  search  and  bring  in  the  ships  of  each  other ;'  and  when 
the  permission  of  neutrals  to  have  their  ships  searched  is 
asked  at  the  commencement  of  a  war,  it  may  then  be  time 
enough  to  admit  that  the  right  stands  on  exactly  the  same 
footing  in  time  of  war  and  in  time  of  peace."*  Again,  p. 
257,  "  If  I  felt  it  necessary  to  press  the  consideration  further, 
it  would  be  by  stating  the  gigantic  mischiefs  which  such  a 
claim  is  likely  to  produce.  It  is  no  secret,  particularly  in 
this  place,  that  the  right  of  search,  in  time  of  war,  though 
unquestionable,  is  not  submitted  to  without  complaints  loud 
and  bitter,  in  spite  of  all  the  modifications  that  can  be  applied 
to  it."  "  If  it  be  assumed  by  force,  and  left  at  large  to  ope- 
rate reciprocally  upon  the  ships  of  every  State,  (for  it  must 
be  a  right  of  all  against  all,)  without  any  other  limits  as  to 
time,  place,  or  mode  of  inquiry,  than  such  as  the  prudence 

*  In  Mr.  Walsh's  appeal,  p.  375,  published  in  1819,  there  is  a  passage  illus- 
trating this  point  in  Sir  Wm.  Scott's  argument.  "In  the  first  negotiations 
respecting  the  (slave)  trade,  which  Lord  Castlereagh  opened  with  the  French 
cabinet  after  the  treaty  of  1814,  he  suggested,  as  a  desirable  arrangement,  the 
concession  of  a  mutual  right  of  search  and  capture  in  certain  latitudes,  between 
France  and  Great  Britain,  in  order  to  prevent  an  illegal  exportation  from  the 
coast  of  Africa.  The  Duke  of  Wellington  made  the  proposition  to  the  Prince 
of  Benevento,  but  soon  discovered  that  it  was  too  disagreeable  to  the  French 
government  and  nation  to  admit  a  hope  of  its  being  urged  with  success.  I  do 
not  find  from  the  history  of  the  Conferences  at  Vienna,  in  1815,  that  it  was 
mofe  than  hinted  in  these  conferences.  Spain  and  Portugal,  however,  in  their 
mock  renunciation  of  the  trade  north  of  the  equinoctial  line,  acceded  to  a 
stipulation  of  like  tenor.  Great  satisfation  was  expressed  in  Parliament  with 
the  arrangement,  when  the  Spanish  treaty  came  under  disciission.  The  intro- 
duction of  the  right  of  search  and  bringing  in  for  condemnation,  in  time  of  peace, 
was  declared  to  be  &  precedent  of  the  utmost  importance."  On  the  same  au- 
thorty  it  appears  that,  in  June,  1818,  Lord  Castlereagh  addressed  a  special  letter 
to  the  American  Minister,  enclosing  copies  of  the  treaties  made  with  Spain  and 
Portugal,  and  inviting  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  enter  into  the 
plan  digested  in  those  treaties  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade,  which 
must  otherwise  prove  irreducible.  The  answer  of  the  American  government, 
communicated  at  the  end  of  December,  by  the  American  Ambassador,  is  de- 
tailed in  the  report  of  the  institution.  He  asserts  the  deep  and  unfeigned  soli- 
citude of  the  United  States  for  the  universal  extirpation  of  the  slave-trade, 
but  with  all  due  comity  declines  the  proposed  arrangements  as  being  of  a 
character  "not  adapted  to  the  circumstances  or  institutions  of  the  United 
States."  Mr.  W.  pointedly  remarks,  "Truly  the  United  States  had  sufficiently 
proved  the  British  right  of  search  in  time  of  war  to  be  careful  not  to  create 
one  for  the  season  of  peace."  "In  July,  1816,  a  circular  intimation  was  given 
to  all  British  cruisers  that  the  right  of  search,  being  a  belligerent  right,  had 
ceased  with  the  war." — Wheaton's  Right  of  Search,  25.  See  also  American 
State  Papers,  Foreign  Kelations,  vol.  4,  p.  400,  and  Wheaton,  from  p.  25. 


22 

of  particular  States,  or  the  individual  subjects  may  impose, 
I  leave  the  tragedy  contained  in  this  case  to  illustrate  the 
effects  that  are  likely  to  arise  in  the  very  first  stages  of  the 
process,  without  adding  to  the  account,  what  must  be  consid- 
ered a  most  awful  part  of  it,  the  perpetual  irritation  and  the 
universal  hostility  which  are  likely  to  ensue." 

It  has,  it  is  believed,  been  fully  shown  in  the  preceding 
pages,  that  the  claim  of  England,  under  the  law  of  nations, 
to  exercise  any  right,  be  it  called  visit,  visitation,  or  search, 
in  time  of  peace,  is  not  only  of  modern,  but  very  recent  ori- 
gin ;  that  it  has  never  been  asserted  by  any  other  nation ; 
that  it  is  entirely  destitute  of  those  grounds  on  which  the 
entire  law  of  nations  and  each  of  its  distinct  principles  can 
alone  find  any  assured  foundation,  viz:  a  general  recognition 
by  the  civilized  nations  of  the  worlds  It  would  not  be  easy 
to  add  to  the  force  of  the  argument  of  Sir  Wm.  Scott  in  re- 
butting every  ground  upon  which  Britain  has  claimed  this 
right,  or  to  sustain  every  principle  by  which  that  pretence 
has  been  controverted  by  the  United  States. 

It  now  remains  to  examine  the  views  presented  on  this 
subject  by  Mr.  Phillemore,  the  most  recent  distinguished 
author  in  England  upon  the  laws  of  nations.  It  is  but  justice 
to  this  gentleman  to  say  that  his  valuable  work  is  character- 
ised by  diligent  research,  extensive  and  profound  erudition, 
and,  in  the  main,  by  fairness  and  impartiality.  On  this  par- 
ticular branch  of  his  subject,  it  will  devolve  upon  us  to  point 
out  what  we  cannot  but  apprehend  to  be  an  aberration  from 
that  clearness  and  fairness  which  in  general  we  acknowledge 
to  belong  to  him. 

The  third  chapter  of  his  third  volume  is  appropriated  to 
the  discussion  of  the  right  of  visit  and  search.  He  com- 
mences by  citing  two  passages  from  French  writers,  to  show 
that,  even  in  time  of  peace,  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  vessel  to 
sail  upon  the  high  seas  without  any  papers  on  board  indica- 
ting the  nation  to  which  she  belongs,"  &c.  From  this  gene- 
ral principle  he  proceeds  per  saltern  to  assert  "that  a  vessel 
may,  under  extraordinary  circumstances  of  grave  suspicion, 


23 

be  visited  in  time  of  peace  on  the  high  seas ;  for  how  other- 
wise could  it  be  ascertained  whether  or  not  she  carried  the 
proper  papers  on  board?  Or  for  what  purpose,  if  she  may 
not  be  visited,  is  she  to  carry  them?  These  circumstances  of 
"  grave  suspicion"  are  to  be  found  in  some  "  extraordinary 
case,"  and  to  attach  to  some  particular  "  vessel."  Without 
further  specification  the  doctrince  advanced  is  certainly  vague 
and  obscure. 

The  proposition,  at  least  the  ground  on  which  it  is  sup- 
posed to  rest,  is  clothed  rather  in  the  form  of  an  interroga- 
tion than  in  that  of  direct  assertion.  It  may,  without  merit- 
ing the  opprobrium  of  merely  punning,  be  said  that  it  comes 
in  a  very  questionable  shape.  It  may  be  answered  in  the 
same  form.  Is  there  any  law  of  nations  which  prescribes  the 
form  and  character  of  the  papers  which  a  vessel  ought  to 
carry  in  time  of  peace  ?  Are  not  these  directed  in  every 
nation  by  its  own  peculiar  laws  ?  Each  nation  has  a  right  to 
prescribe  to  its  own  vessels  what  papers  they  shall  carry  to 
exhibit  their  national  character,  and  require  them  to  conform 
to  its  own  municipal  regulations.  Sometimes,  by  conven- 
tions between  different  powers,  papers  of  another  kind  are 
required  under  peculiar  circumstances,  or  to  provide  against 
particular  incidents.  But  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  any 
particular  description  of  papers  is  required  by  the  law  of 
nations ;  that  a  neutral  cruiser  has  a  right  to  detain,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  a  ship  is  furnished  with 
such  documents,  or  that  the  want  of  such  papers  would  jus- 
tify a  foreign  vessel  in  the  seizure  of  such  vessel,  or  subject 
her  to  condemnation.  The  right  of  search  must  exist  before 
such  an  inquiry  can  be  lawfully  made.  The  want  of  proper 
papers  may  prevent  an  original  clearance  from  a  native  port, 
may  interfere  with  entry  into  a  foreign  port  of  destination, 
may  warrant  the  cruisers  of  any  nation  or  its  revenue  officers 
within  their  appropriate  sphere  of  jurisdiction,  in  visiting 
vessels  which,  within  such  jurisdiction,  bear  their  respective 
national  flag,  or  come  within  the  boundaries  of  their  respec- 
tive ports  or  harbors,  to  enforce  the  revenue  or  other  muni- 


24 

cipal  laws  of  their  own  countries.  Surely  Mr.  Phillemore 
will  scarcely  contend  that  an  American  or  Spanish  cruiser 
has  a  right,  either  on  the  broad  ocean  or  in  the  English  chan- 
nel, to  visit  a  vessel  sailing  under  the  British  flag  to  see 
whether  she  is  provided  with  such  papers  as  the  law  of  its 
own  country  requires. 

His  second  proposition  being  a  mere  inference  from  the 
preceding,  is,  it  is  conceived,  already  answered  in  what  has 
been  said. 

The  next  doctrine  advanced  by  Mr.  Phillemore  demands 
a  more  distinct  and  serious  reply.  "  It  is  quite  true,"  says 
he,  "  that  the  right  of  visit  and  search  is  strictly  a  belligerent 
right."  He,  however,  continues :  "  But  the  right  of  visit  in 
time  of  peace,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  nationality 
of  a  vessel,  is  a  part,  indeed,  but  a  very  small  part,  of  the 
belligerent  right  of  visit  and  search." 

For  the  first  clause  in  this  paragraph  the  author  cites  the 
case  of  Le  Louis,  from  2  Dodson ;  La  Jeune  Eugenie,  2 
Mason,  409,  as  cited  in  the  Antelope,  10  Wheat,  66.  No  au- 
thority is  referred  to  to  sustain  the  second  and  most  import- 
ant clause.  It  is  made  to  rest  on  the  simple  authority  of  Mr. 
Phillemore  himself.  The  language  employed  is  not  charac- 
terised by  the  clearness  and  distinctness  usually  displayed 
by  the  learned  author.  He  limits  the  right  which  he  asserts 
to  one  single  object,  "  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  nation- 
ality of  a  vessel."  He  does  not,  however,  intimate  in  whom 
the  right  exists  to  determine  or  to  inquire  into  this  nation- 
ality, under  what  circumstances  or  to  what  extent  such  right 
may  be  exercised,  what  is  to  result  from  the  fact  when  ascer- 
tained, or  what  penalties  may  attach  to  the  vessel  resisting 
such  an  attempt  to  visit.  Nor  does  he  point  out  by  what 
evidence  this  nationality  is  to  be  established.  What  is  even 
more  remarkable,  he  omits  to  explain  the  extraordinary  propo- 
sition, that  a  right  which  he  claims  may  be  exercised  in  time 
of  peace,  can  possibly  be  a  part,  however  small,  of  a  bellige- 
rent right.  Without  any  explanation  we  must  say,  with  all 
due  respect  to  the  learned  commentator,  the  proposition  is  to 
our  minds  unintelligible,  contradictory,  and  preposterous. 


Had  Mr.  Phillemore  diligently  examined  the  cases  to  which 
he  refers  as  sustaining  the  first  clause  of  the  paragraph,  he 
could  not  have  failed  to  perceive,  that  they  as  distinctly  con- 
tradict and  repudiate  his  last  position  as  they  affirm  the  first. 
The  citations  already  made  from  Le  Louis  are  in  direct  op- 
position to  the  view  of  the  commentator.  In  the  case  of  La 
Jeune  Eugenie,  Mr.  Justice  Story  (2  Mason,  436)  thus  ex- 
presses himself:  "I  am  free  to  admit,  as  a  general  proposi- 
tion, that  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  of  foreign  ships 
on  the  high  seas,  can  be  exercised  only  in  time  of  war,  in 
virtue  of  a  belligerent  claim,  and  that  there  is  no  admitted 
principle  or  practice  which  justifies  its  exercise  in  time  of 
peace"  The  Antelope,  in  10  Wheaton,  was  a  case  of  a  foreign 
vessel.  Chief  Justice  Marshal,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  overrules  so  much  of  the  judgment  in  La  Jeune 
Eugenie  as  had  sustained  the  doctrine  that  the  slave-trade 
was  prohibited  by  the  law  of  nations.  In  another  part  of  his 
judgment,  he  says: 

"  If  it  (the  slave-trade)  is  consistent  with  the  law  of  nations, 
It  cannot,  in  itself,  be  piracy.  It  can  be  made  so  only  by 
statutes  ;  and  the  obligation  of  the  statute  cannot  transcend 
the  legislative  power  of  the  State  which  may  enact  it.  If  it 
be  neither  repugnant  to  the  law  of  nations,  nor  piracy,  it  is 
almost  supurfluous  to  say,  in  this  court,  that  the  right  of 
bringing  in  for  adjudication,  in  time  of  peace,  even  where 
the  vessel  belongs  to  a  nation  which  prohibited  the  trade, 
cannot  exist.  The  courts  of  no  country  execute  the  penal  laws 
of  another ;  and  the  course  of  the  American  government  on 
the  subject  of  visitation  and  search  would  decide  any  case  in 
which  that  right  had  been  exercised  by  an  American  cruiser, 
on  the  vessel  of  a  foreign  nation  not  violating  our  municipal 
laws,  against  the  captors,"  (pp.  122,  123.) 

So  much  for  the  very  cases  referred  to  by  Mr.  Phillemore 
in  this  very  paragraph.  They  effectively  annihilate  his  prop- 
osition. 

The  learned  author  then  quotes  a  passage  from  Bynker- 

shock,  which  he  himself  admits  was  part  of  an  argument  for 
4  '-••'• 


26 

the  right  of  search  in  time  of  war,  and  then  observes,  "surely 
this  reasoning  applies  to  the  right  of  ascertaining  the  national 
character  of  a  suspected  pirate,  in  time  of  peace;  and  it  may 
be  added,  that  it  appears  to  have  been  so  considered  by  no- 
less  a  person  than  Mr.  Chancellor  Kent/' 

So  far  as  regards  this  logic,  if  so  it  may  be  called,  it  has 
been  abundantly  refuted  by  Sir  William  Scott  in  the  Louis? 
•where  he  refused  to  attach  the  smallest  importance  to  "a 
solemn  declaration  of  very  eminent  persons  assembled  in 
Congress,  whose  rank,  high  as  it  is,  is  by  no  means  the  most 
respectable  foundation  for  the  weight  of  their  opinion." 

The  invocation  of  Chancellor  Kent,  as  sustaining,  to  any 
extent,  the  position  contended  for,  must  not,  however,  be 
allowed  to  escape  with  so  slight  a  notice.  In  the  third  edi- 
tion of  his  commentaries,  page  153,  this  able  jurist  thus  de- 
clares his  view  of  the  law.  It  is  given  in  his  precise  words  i 

"In  order  to  enforce  the  rights  of  belligerent  nations  against 
the  delinquencies  of  neutrals,  and  to  ascertain  the  real,  a& 
well  as  assumed,  character  of  all  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  the 
law  of  nations  arms  them  with  the  practical  power  of  visita- 
tion and  search.  The  duty  of  self-preservation  gives  to  bellig- 
erent nations  this  right.  It  is  founded  upon  necessity,  and 
is  strictly  and  exclusively  a  war  right,  and  does  not  exist  in 
time  of  peace.  All  writers  upon  the  law  of  nations,  and  the 
highest  authorities,  acknowledge  the  right  as  resting  on  sound 
principles  of  public  jurisprudence,  and  upon  the  institutes 
arid  practice  of  all  great  maritime  powers."  The  authorities 
referred  to  in  support  of  this  doctrine  are  Yattel — the  Maria, 
I  Kob.,  287;  2  Dodson,  245,  (Le  Louis,  a  passage  we  have 
already  cited,  in  which  the  exercise  of  such  right  in  time  of 
peace  is  distinctly  repudiated ;)  the  Marianna  Flora,  11 
"Wheat.,  42,  a  case  presently  to  be  cited. 

By  what  process  of  reasoning  such  language  can  be  made 
to  sustain  a  proposition  which  it  distinctly  repudiates,  and 
which  is  equally  at  variance  with  each  of  the  authorities 
quoted  by  the  Chancellor;  by  what  Procrustean  method, 
doctrines,  so  distinctly  opposed,  can  be  brought  to  sustain  a 


27 

proposition  which  they  appear  to  condemn  and  disavow, 
Mr.  Phillemore  has  not  thought  it  expedient  to  explain. 
From  the  terms  of  high  eulogium  he  applies  to  this  distin- 
guished American  jurist,  it  might  be  inferred  that  he  was 
familiar  with  his  writings,  or  at  all  events,  with  his  great 
production — his  commentaries — to  which  he  so  frequently 
refers.  If  what  has  already  been  said  furnishes  some  indica- 
tions, to  say  the  least,  of  unfairness  and  misrepresentation, 
what  shall  be  said  of  the  accumulated  evidence  now  to  be 
produced?  In  page  25  of  the  same  volume  which  Mr,  Phil- 
lemore professes  to  quote,  the  learned  Chancellor  says  : 

"The  open  sea  is  not  capable  of  being  possessed  as  private 
property.  The  free  use  of  the  ocean  for  navigation  and  fish- 
ing is  common  to  all  mankind,  and  the  public  jurists,  gener- 
ally and  explicitly,  deny  that  the  main  ocean  can  ever  be 
appropriated.  The  subjects  of  all  nations  meet  there  in  time 
vf  peace,  on  a  footing  of  entire  equality  and  independence. 
~No  nation  has  any  right  of  jurisdiction  at  sea,  except  it  be 
over  the  persons  of  its  own  subjects,  in  its  own  vessels;  and 
so  far  territorial  jurisdiction  may  be  considered  as  preserved ; 
for  the  vessels  of  a  nation  are,  in  many  respects,  considered 
as  portions  of  its  territory,  and  persons  on  board  are  protected 
and  governed  by  the  law  of  the  country  to  which  the  vessel 
belongs.  This  jurisdiction  is  confined  to  the  ship  ;  and  no 
one  ship  has  a  right  to  prohibit  the  approach  of  another  at 
sea,  or  to  draw  round  her  a  line  of  territorial  jurisdiction, 
within  which  no  other  is  at  liberty  to  intrude.  Every  vessel, 
in  time  of  peace,  has  a  right  to  consult  its  own  safety  and 
convenience,  and  to  pursue  its  own  course  and  business,  with- 
out being  disturbed,  when  it  does  not  violate  the  rights  of 
others." 

Enough  has  been  said,  it  is  believed,  to  show  how  much 
confidence  is  justly  to  be  attributed  to  the  candor  and  im- 
partial judgment  of  Mr.  Phillemore  ;  but  we  cannot  resist 
the  opportunity  of  adverting  to  another  specimen  of  the  same 
character.  Appended  to  the  citation  above  adverted  to  from 
Bynkershock,  which,  while  used  as  an  argument  in  favor  of 


2B 

the  belligerent  right  of  visitation  and  search,  he  intimates  is- 
equally  applicable  to  the  existence  of  the  same  right  in  time 
of  peace,  which  is  that  a  ship  is  bound  to  have  on  board  pa- 
pers which  will  demonstrate  her  national  character,  he  again 
cites  American  authorities.  He  refers  to  1  Paine,  594 ;  1 
Kent  Com.,  161,  158. 

Now,  the  case  cited  from  Paine  is  that  of  Catlett  V9.  Pa- 
cific Insurance  Company.  The  action  was  brought  upon  a 
policy  of  insurance,  to  which  citizens  of  the  United  States- 
were  alone  parties,  to  which  there  actually  existed,  or  was 
implied,  a  warranty  that  the  vessel  was  American.  The 
question  was  whether  the  party  had  shown  a  compliance 
with  this  condition.  The  court  expressed  its  opinion  that  a 
register  was  sufficient  evidence  of  this  fact.  "  There  being  a 
state  of  universal  peace,  and  no  treaty  provisions  applicable 
to  the  voyage,  the  register  was  all  that  could  be  necessary  ta 
show  the  national  character.  No  question  of  belligerent  or 
neutral  rights  could  arise."  Two  cases  were  cited  in  the  ar- 
gument of  the  case,  (14  Johns,  316 ;  2  Serg.  and  R,  133.) 
It  may  be  sufficient  to  say  that  all  these  eases  involved  ques- 
tions of  purely  municipal  law,  what  were  the  documents  re- 
quired  by  the  American  law  under  our  own  revenue  system. 
These  questions  arose  in  American  courts,  and  were  to  be 
adjudicated  by  the  law  of  the  land.  Not  a  word  is  said  as 
to  the  evidence  which  the  law  of  nations  may  require  to  es- 
tablish the  nationality  of  a  vessel,  and  this  was  the  point,  and 
the  only  point,  which  it  was  pertinent  to  Mr.  Phillemore's 
argument  to  shew. 

In  a  previous  passage  from  his  work,  which  meets  with,  a& 
it  deserves,  our  almost  entire  concurrence  and  approbation,  he 
thus  expresses  himself,  in  his  chapter  on  the  general  character 
and  duty  of  tribunals  of  prize.  Such  a  court,  he  says,  p.  533y 
"  ought  to  command  the  respect  of  nations  ;  it  ought  to  be 
above — not  slander,  indeed,  for  then  it  would  not  be  a  human 
institution— but  just  and  reasonable  suspicion.  It  ought  to 
administer  international  not  municipal  law,  except  in  so  far 
as  it  might  happen  that  the  latter  was  identical  with  or 


29 

declaratory  of  the  former.  Its  procedure  ought  to  be  open 
and  exposed  to  all  criticism.  It  ought  to  allow  every  liberty 
of  speech  to  the  claimant  or  his  representative,  as  well  as  to 
the  belligerent  or  his  representative.  It  should  administer  a 
consistent  law,  upon  certain  and  known  principles,  impar- 
tially applied  to  all  States  and  to  their  subjects.  The  high 
standard  of  the  great  philosopher  and  jurist  of  antiquity, 
(neque  erit  alia  lex  JRomce,  alia  Athenis  ;  alia  nunc,  alia 
posthac?)  should  be  perpetually  before  its  eyes.  It  should 
always  remember  that  the  law  which  it  has  to  administer  is 
not  of  one  character  at  Rome  and  another  at  Athens,  but 
one  and  the  same  everywhere,  followed  and  applied,  as  far  as 
human  infirmity  will  permit,  upon  the  principles  of  immu- 
table right  and  eternal  justice." 

So  long  as  the  English  admiralty  courts  acted  upon  these 
principles  and  rigidly  practised,  them,  so  long  as  British 
jurists  acknowledged  and  maintained  them,  those  tribunals 
and  j  udges  were  the  admiration  of  the  world — all  recognized 
the  ability,  the  integrity  with  which  their  judgments  were 
pronounced,  and  their  opinions  were  universally  revered. 

It  is  hoped  that  another  opportunity  will  be  soon  afforded 
them  of  sustaining  this  high  reputation.  If  every  American 
vessel  which  has  been  stopped  in  her  voyage  shall  institute 
proceedings  in  the  British  courts,  claiming  damages  for  the 
stoppage  and  detention  of  them  on  their  voyage,  and  claim 
demurrage,  and  if,  particularly,  those  that  have  been  fired 
into  or  stopped  by  force,  should  institute  similar  proceedings, 
it  would  be  ascertained  how  far  British  courts,  assuming  to 
administer  the  laws  of  nations,  would  maintain  their  former 
character. 

"We  have  thus  inadvertently  been  brought  off,  for  a  mo- 
ment, from  the  immediate  subject  before  us;  to  that  we  shall 
now  return,  to  meet  the  only  remaining  point  which  it  ap- 
pears necessary  to  discuss.  The  English  government,  and 
its  advocates,  endeavor  to  support  their  views  upon  this 
subject  by  a  new  sophism ;  they  try,  at  least  by  assertion, 
neither  by  argument,  reason,  nor  authority,  to  draw  a  line 


30 

of  distinction  between  the  right  of  visit  and  that  of  visitation 
and  search.  They  have  repeatededly  been  challenged  to 
produce  any  individual  authority  which  mentions,  much  less 
asserts,  this  distinction.  To  this  challenge  no  response  has 
been  yet  made  by  either  jurist  or  diplomat.  On  the  Ameri- 
can side  it  is  denied  that  there  is  any  foundation  for  such 
distinction  beyond  the  mere  grammatical  one  between  a 
verb  and  a  substantive.  We  understand  the  verb  visit  to 
signify  to  make  a  visitation ;  we  understand  visitation  as  the 
act  of  visiting.  Such  is  the  acceptation  of  these  words,  as  is 
believed  without  exception,  by  every  writer  and  lexicogra- 
pher. Lord  Aberdeen,  who  it  is  believed  was  the  first  author 
of  this  distinction,  can  hardly,  even  in  Great  Britain,  be  re- 
garded as  of  higher  authority  than  Lord  Castlereagh,  Mr. 
Canning,  and  other  accomplished  English  statesmen  ;  or  than 
Sir  Wm.  Scott,  Dr.  Lushington,  Dr.  Dodson,  to  whom  it  was 
apparently  unknown.  He  belongs  to  the  Scotch  school, 
admirably  accomplished  in  all  the  refinements  of  meta- 
physics, but  to  whom  neither  Americans  nor  English  would 
ordinarily  be  disposed  to  resort  as  umpires  in  a  question  as 
to  the  precise  signification  of  English  words. 

The  distinction,  which  we  consider  as  a  mere  specimen  of 
what  an  eminent  Scotch  writer  has  called  logomachy,  has 
never  received  the  sanction  of  any  British  judge,  or  of  any 
British  jurist,  anterior  to  the  time  of  Mr.  Phillemore.  It  is 
utterly  unknown  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  In  the  most 
approved  French  dictionaries  we  find  that  the  word  visiter 
is  translated  into  English  by  the  phrase  to  search,  visiter  les 
merchandises,  to  search  commodities ;  visiter  unnavine,  to 
search  a  ship.  As  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Wheaton  have  re- 
marked, no  writer  on  the  continent  has  ever  afforded  the  least 
sanction  to  this  modern  distinction. 

In  the  absence  of  all  authority  to  the  contrary,  we  may  be 
permitted  to  quote,  as,  at  all  events  in  our  judgment,  con- 
clusive upon  the  subject,  the  solemn  exposition  of  the  law 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  our  own  country,  in  the  case  of  the 
Marianna  Flora,  reported  in  11  Wheaton.  This  case  is 


31 

specially  adverted  to,  and  a  long  citation  from  the  judgment 
of  the  Supreme  Court  is  given  by  Mr.  Phillemore,  p.  422. 
But  the  quotation  made  by  him  would  fail  to  convey  any- 
thing approaching  to  a  correct  exposition  of  the  views 
expressed  by  the  august  tribunal  by  whom  the  case  was 
decided,  and  is  likely  to  mislead  readers  who  rely  upon  Mr. 
Phillemore  as  an  expositor  of  the  law. 

Correctly  to  understand  and  properly  to  appreciate  the 
language  of  the  court,  especially  when  pronounced  at  some 
length  in  the  exposition  of  the  law  in  a  C&SQ  primce  impres- 
sionis,  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  should  be 
fully  and  fairly  presented.  This  Mr.  Phillemore  has  failed 
or  omitted  to  do.  Be  it  our  part  to  supply  his  deficiency. 
So  far  as  the  present  question  is  in  any  way  affected  by  this 
case,  the  facts  were,  as  stated  by  the  reporter. 

On  the  morning  of  the  5th  November,  1821,  the  Alligator 
and  the  Marianna  Flora  were  mutually  descried  by  each 
other  on  the  ocean,  at  the  distance  of  about  nine  miles  ;  the 
Alligator,  being  on  a  cruise  against  pirates  and  slave-traders, 
under  the  instri  ctions  of  the  President,  and  the  Portuguese 
vessel  being  on  a  voyage  from  Bahia  to  Lisbon,  with  a  valu- 
able cargo.  The  two  vessels  were  then  steering  on  courses 
nearly  at  right  angles  with  each  other ;  the  Marianna  Flora, 
being  under  the  lee  bow  of  the  Alligator.  A  squall  soon 
afterwards  came  on,  which  occasioned  an  obscuration  for 
some  time.  Upon  the  clearing  up  the  of  weather,  it  appeared 
that  the  Marianna  Flora  had  crossed  the  point  of  intersection 
of  the  courses  of  the  two  vessels,  and  was  about  four  miles 
distant  on  the  weather  bow  of  the  Alligator.  Soon  after- 
wards she  shortened  sail  and  hove  to,  having  at  this  time  a 
vane  or  flag  on  her  mast,  somewhat  below  the  head,  which 
induced  Lieutenant  Stockton  (the  commander  of  the  Alliga- 
tor) to  suppose  she  was  in  distress  or  wished  for  information. 
Accordingly  he  deemed  it  his  duty,  upon  this  apparent  invi- 
tation, to  approach  her,  and  immediately  changed  his  course 
towards  her.  When  the  Alligator  was  within  long  shot  of 
the  Portuguese  ship,  the  latter  fired  a  cannon-shot  ahead  of 


32 

the  Alligator,  and  exhibited  the  appearance  and  equipments 
of  an  armed  vessel.  Lieutenant  Stockton  immediately  hoisted 
the  United  States  flag  and  pennant.  The  Marianna  Flora 
then  fired  two  more  guns,  one  loaded  with  grape,  which  fell 
short,  the  other  with  round  shot,  which  passed  over  and  be- 
yond the  Alligator.  This  induced  Lieutenant  Stockton  to 
believe  her  to  be  a  piratical  or  a  slave  vessel,  and  he  directed 
his  own  guns  to  be  fired  in  return ;  but  as  they  were  only 
cannonades,  they  did  not  reach  her.  The  Alligator  continued 
to  approach,  and  the  Marianna  Flora  continued  firing  at  her 
at  times,  until  she  came  within  musket  shot,  and  then  a 
broadside  from  the  Alligator  produced  such  intimidation, 
that  the  Portuguese  ship  almost  immediately  ceased  firing. 
At  that  time,  and  not  before,  the  Portuguese  ship  hoisted  her 
national  flag.  Lieutenant  Stockton  ordered  the  ship  to  sur- 
render and  send  her  boat  on  board,  which  was  accordingly 
done.  He  demanded  an  explanation,  and  the  statement  made 
to  him  by  the  Portuguese  master  and  other  officers  was,  that 
they  did  not  know  him  to  be  an  American  ship  of  war,  but 
took  him  to  be  a  piratical  cruiser.  Under  these  circumstances 
Lieutenant  Stockton  determined  to  send  her  into  the  United 
States  on  account  of  this,  which  he  deemed  a  piratical  aggres- 
sion. Such  were  the  facts  upon  which  the  court  was  to  decide. 
The  vessel  and  cargo  had  been  restored  with  the  assent  of 
the  government  and  the  captors,  and  the  only  remaining 
question  was  as  to  the  liability  of  the  captors  to  damages. 
The  judgment  was  pronounced  by  Mr.  Justice  Story.  In  p. 
41,  the  points  as  contended  for  by  the  claimants  are  thus 
presented  :  "They  contend  that  they  are  entitled  to  damages; 
first,  because  the  conduct  of  Lieutenant  Stockton,  in  the  ap- 
proach and  seizure  of  the  Marianna  Flora,  was  unjustifiable; 
and  second,  because,  at  all  events,  the  subsequent  sending 
her  in  for  adjudication,  was  without  any  reasonable  cause. 
In  considering  these  points,  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  what 
are  the  rights  and  duties  of  armed  and  other  ships,  navigating 
the  ocean  in  time  of  peace. 

*'  It  is  admitted  that  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  does 


33 

not,  under  such  circumstances,  belong  to  the  public  ships  of 
any  nation.  The  right  is,  strictly,  a  belligerent  right,  allowed 
by  the  general  consent  of  nations  in  time  of  war,  and  limited 
to  those  occasions.  It  is  true,  that  it  has  been  held  in  the 
courts  of  this  country,  that  American  ships  offending  against 
our  laws,  and  foreign  ships  in  like  manner,  offending  within 
our  jurisdiction,  may  afterward  be  pursued  and  seized  upon 
the  ocean,  and  rightfully  brought  into  our  ports  for  adjudi- 
cation. This,  however,  has  never  been  supposed  to  draw 
after  any  right  of  visitation  or  search.  The  party,  in  such 
cases,  seizes  at  his  peril.  If  he  establishes  the  forfeiture,  he 
is  justified.  If  he  fails,  he  must  make  full  compensation  in 
damages. 

"Upon  the  ocean,  then,  in  time  of  peace,  all  possess  an 
entire  equality.  It  is  the  common  highway  of  all — appropri- 
ated to  the  use  of  all — and  no  one  can  vindicate  to  himself  a 
superior  or  exclusive  prerogative  there.  The  general  maxim 
in  such  cases  is,  sic  utere  tuo,  ut  non  alienum  Icedas. 

"It  has  been  argued  that  no  ship  has  a  right  to  approach 
another  at  sea;  and  that  every  ship  has  a  right  to  draw 
round  her  a  line  of  jurisdiction,  within  which  no  other  has  a 
right  to  intrude.  In  short,  that  she  may  appropriate  so  much 
of  the  ocean  as  she  may  deem  necessary  for  her  protection, 
and  prevent  any  nearer  approach.  This  doctrine  appears  to 
us  novel,  and  is  not  supported  by  any  authority.  It  goes  to 
establish,  upon  the  ocean,  a  territorial  jurisdiction,  like  that 
which  is  claimed  by  all  nations  within  cannon  shot  of  their 
own  shores,  in  virtue  of  their  general  sovereignty.  But  the 
latter  right  is  founded  on  the  principles  of  sovereign  and 
permanent  appropriation,  and  has  never  been  successfully 
asserted  beyond  it.  Every  vessel  undoubtedly  has  a  right  to 
the  use  of  so  much  of  the  ocean  as  she  occupies,  and  as  is 
essential  to  her  own  movements.  Beyond  this,  no  exclusive 
right  has  ever  yet  been  recognized,  and  we  see  no  reason  for 
admitting  its  existence.  Merchant  ships  are  in  the  constant 
habit  of  approaching  each  other  on  the  ocean,  either  to  re- 
lieve their  own  distress,  to  procure  information,  or  to  ascer- 
5 


34 


tain  the  character  of  strangers ;  and  hitherto  there  has  never 
been  supposed,  in  such  conduct,  any  breach  of  the  customary 
observances  or  of  the  strictest  principle  of  the  law  of  nations. 
In  respect  to  ships-of-war  sailing  as  in  the  present  case,  under 
the  authority  of  their  government,  to  arrest  pirates  and  other 
public  offenders,  there  is  no  reason  why  they  may  not  ap- 
proach any  vessels  descried  at  sea,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining their  real  character.  Such  a  right  seems  indispensable 
for  the  fair  and  discreet  exercise  of  their  authority,  and  the 
use  of  it  cannot  justly  be  deemed  indicative  of  any  design  to 
injure  or  insult  those  they  approach,  or  to  impede  them  in  their 
lawful  commerce.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  as  clear  that  no  ship 
is,  under  such  circumstances,  bound  to  lie  by  or  wait  the  ap- 
proach of  any  other  ship.  She  is  at  full  liberty  to  pursue 
her  voyage  in  her  own  way,  and  to  use  all  necessary  precau- 
tions to  avoid  any  suspected  sinister  enterprise  or  hostile 
attack.  She  has  a  right  to  consult  her  own  safety,  but  at  the 
same  time  she  must  take  care  not  to  violate  the  rights  of 
others.  She  may  use  any  precautions  dictated  by  the  pru- 
dence or  fears  of  her  officers,  either  as  to  delay  or  the  progress 
or  course  of  her  voyage,  but  she  is  not  at  liberty  to  inflict 
injuries  upon  other  innocent  parties,  simply  because  of  con- 
jectural dangers.  These  principles  seem  to  us  the  natural 
result  of  the  common  duties  and  rights  of  nations  navigating 
the  ocean  in  time  of  peace." 

In  a  subsequent  part  of  the  same  opinion  (p.  49)  we  find 
this  language :  "  It  might  be  a  decisive  answer  to  this  argu- 
ment that,  here,  no  right  of  visitation  and  search  was  at- 
tempted to  be  exercised.  Lieutenant  Stockton  did  not  claim 
to  be  a  belligerent,  entitled  to  search  neutrals  on  the  ocean. 
His  commission  was  for  other  objects.  He  did  not  approach 
or  subdue  the  Marianna  Flora  in  order  to  compel  her  to 
submit  to  his  search,  but  with  other  motives.  He  took  pos- 
session of  her,  not  because  she  resisted  the  right  of  search, 
but  because  she  attacked  him  in  a  hostile  manner,  without 
any  reasonable  cause  or  provocation." 

"  Upon  the  whole,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  conduct  of 


35 


Lieutenant  Stockton,  in  approaching  and  ultimately  subduing 
the  Marianna  Flora,  was  entirely  justifiable.  The  first  wrong 
was  done  by  her;  and  his  own  subsequent  acts  were  a  justr 
defence  and  vindication  of  the  rights  and  honor  of  his  coun- 
try." 

These  citations  have  been  more  full  and  distinct  than 
under  other  circumstances  would  be  deemed  necessary ;  but 
these  brief  remarks  upon  a  question  of  absorbing  interest  and 
deep  concern,  not  only  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  and 
their  government,  but  to  all  nations,  may  possibly  be  read 
by  many  who  have  not  the  facilities  of  referring  to  the  origi- 
nal authorities,  and  because  it  is  thought  that  Mr.  Phille- 
more  has  not  made  his  quotations  from  American  authorities 
sufficiently  full,  or  so  arranged  them  as  to  convey  to  his 
readers  an  opportunity  fully  to  appreciate  their  precise  mean- 
ing, or  to  give  to  them  their  full  weight. 

It  is  the  earnest  desire  of  the  great  mass  of  the  American 
people,  sincerely  so  of  the  writer — and  it  is  believed  that  this 
feeling  is  reciprocated  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic — that 
the  present  difficulties  may  not  only  be  amicably  adjusted, 
but  settled  in  a  manner  which  will  preclude  for  the  future 
any  recurrence  of  them.  We,  however,  believe  that  such 
controversies  can  alone  be  terminated  to  the  mutual  satisfac- 
tion of  the  parties,  and  in  a  way  to  be  productive  of  the  con- 
tinuance of  amicable  relations,  by  no  other  mode  than  one, 
which  will  continue,  cherish,  augment,  and  perpetuate  those 
feelings  of  mutual  respect  which  every  consideration  induces 
the  belief  that  they  can  never  be  diminished  or  shaken,  by 
an  adjustment  which  will  leave  to  either  party  a  confidence 
in  the  sincerity  and  untarnished  honor  of  the  other. 

Deeply  impressed  with  this  feeling,  we  have  sought,  and 
it  is  hoped  not  unsuccessfully,  to  show  that  the  American 
government  has  uniformly  acknowledged  every  doctrine  of 
the  public  law  which  has  obtained  the  concurrent  evidence 
of  established  usage  among  civilized  nations,  and  the  au- 
thority of  approved  jurists;  that  the  doctrine  for  which  we  at 
present  contend  has  passed  this  ordeal  and  received  this 


36 

sanction;  that  it  has  been,  in  an  especial  manner,  and  in  the 
most  precise  terms,  approved  by  the  most  exalted  statesmen, 
the  ablest  judges,  and  the  most  learned  jurists  even  of  Eng- 
land herself;  that,  until  within  a  few  years,  the  contrary- 
doctrine  against  which  we  contend,  and  which  we  ever  have 
and  ever  will  resist,  has  met  with  no  approbation  out  of 
England,  and  much  of  disapprobation  and  opposition  even 
! there ;  that  while  we  are  unanimous  in  our  resolution  never 
to  concede  it,  the  great  weight  of  British  authority  is  wholly 
antagonistic  to  it. 

It  is  a  subject  of  congratulation  that  there  are  at  present, 
and  every  day  increasing,  indications  that  there  will  be  no 
interruption  of  the  harmony  which  has  so  long,  and  happily 
for  both  nations,  subsisted  between  them,  and  these  remarks 
will  be  closed  with  the  prayer,  Esto  perpetua  ! 


FT  o  in,    7V/ 1-    .  \V  'ir  -  En  (/ 1 «  n  <1  c  i- 


THE 


MONROE  DOCTROE. 


BY    JOSHUA    LEAVITT. 


SINCLAIR    TO  US  EY—  121    NASSAU    STREET, 


UENERAI.  AGENT  FOR   NKVSSDEAT/ER*  ANT>  BOOKSETXEK 


THE 


MONROE  DOCTRIIE. 


BY    JOSHUA    LEAVITT. 


SINCLAIR    TOUSEY  — 121    NASSAU    STREET, 

GENERAL  AGENT  FOR  NEWSDEALERS  AND  BOOKSELLER?. 
1863. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE. 


THE  old  platform  of  religious  exclusives — "  Resolved,  1st, 
that  the  earth  belongs  to  the  saints  ;  and — Resolved,  2dly,  that 
we  are  the  saints" — was  not  original  with  the  fanatics  to  whom 
it  has  been  imputed.  It  is,  in  fact,  but  a  summary  of  the  code 
of  public  law  "which  prevailed  in  Europe  at  the  period  when 
America  was  discovered.  The  nations  calling  themselves  Chris- 
tian assumed  the  right  of  seizing  and  occupying  all  lands  inhab- 
ited by  barbarians,  and  in  case  of  a  dispute  as  to  boundaries  or 
priority  of  claim,  the  Pope  was  recognized  as  the  supreme  judge 
and  divider  among  them,  from  whose  decrees  there  was  no  appeal 
but  to  the  ultimate  arbitrament  of  arms.  A  comparison  of  this 
simple  code  with  that  complicated  system  of  rules  by  which  the 
intercourse  of  nations  is  now  regulated,  would  show  the  advance 
which  civilization  has  made  in  this  respect  since  the  Reformation. 
In  modern  public  law,  some  apology  for  the  seizure  of  territories, 
occupied  by  barbarians,  is  deemed  necessary,  beyond  the  grants 
of  the  Pope,  or  the  natural  rights  of  Christians  to  the  ownership 
of  the  whole  earth.  There  were  certain  rules  by  which  Euro- 
pean nations  agreed  to  divide  the  American  continent  among 
themselves,  and  these  are  still  referred  to  among  diplomatists  in 
discussing  questions  of  boundary  and  the  like.  But  the  validity 
of  the  original  title  is  no  longer  allowed  to  be  drawn  into  discus- 
sion. It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  all  America  is  held  under  titles 
derived  from  the  governments  of  Europe.  And  all  questions  of 
title,  except  as  modified  by  local  law,  are  decided  according  to 
the  rules  and  principles  of  the  European  country  to  whose  origi- 
nal sovereignty  all  rights  of  individual  ownership  refer.  It  is 
impossible,  therefore,  to  suppress  this  fact,  in  any  faithful  inves- 
tigation of  our  relations  to  Europe. 

But  in  addition  to  this,  we  must  remember  that  every  civil- 
ized community  on  this  continent  was  originally  constituted  by 


4  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

the  authority  of  some  European  monarch,  and  for  about  two  cen- 
turies was  governed  by  the  laws,  and  disposed  of  by  the  will  of 
the  mother  country.  They  were  mere  dependent  colonies,  having 
no  rights  except  by  the  gift  of  their  sovereigns,  and,  indeed, 
were  held  to  be  owned  as  the  rightful  property  of  those  sover- 
eigns, and  liable  as  property  to  be  assigned  by  one  to  another,  or 
captured  in  war  from  one  by  another,  at  will,  like  any  other  ab- 
solute possession.  They  were  simple  appendages  of  the  political 
system  of  Europe,  liable  at  any  time,  without  any  will  or  agency 
of  their  own,  to  be  involved  in  the  calamities  and  responsibilities 
of  war,  for  objects  in  which  they  had  no  interest,  and  then  to 
have  the  war  ended  by  treaty  in  which  their  welfare  re- 
ceived no  consideration.  Without  having  any  voice  in  -the 
matter,  they  could  be  transferred  to  new  masters,  or  used  in  any 
other  way  as  mere  counters  in  the  settlement  of  dynastic  quar- 
rels, or  make-weights  in  the  re-adjustment  of  the  European  "  Bal- 
,ance  of  Power.1' 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  the  lirst  breath  of  in- 
dependent national  life  on  this  continent.  The  United  States 
assumed  at  once  the  rank  and  the  responsibilities  of  a  real  nation 
among  nations,  having  the  right  to  govern  itself,  to  make  war  and 
peace,  and  to  determine  its  own  policy  in  relation  to  other  nations, 
according  to  its  own  judgment  of  its  own  interests  and  duties. 
This  new  nation  was  not  in  Europe,  was  not  subject  to  the  liabil- 
ities of  the  European  governments,  not  interested  in  the  rise  and 
fall  of  European  dynasties,  not  concerned  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  balance  of  power  in  Europe,  not  subject  to  the  calculations 
and  complications  of  European  statesmanship.  It  was  a  new 
sensation,  an  unsolved  problem,  to  meet  face  to  face  an  American 
nation,  civilized,  Christian,  responsible,  and  respectable,  demand- 
ing a  place  among  the  family  of  nations,  as  one  of  them,  and  yet 
separate  and  aloof  from  all  the  machinations  of  diplomacy,  and 
unconcerned  in  any  of  the  anxieties  of  state-craft.  No  wonder 
that  kings  and  courts  were  at  a  loss  and  uneasy  with  such  an 
anomaly.  From  that  day  no  art  or  eifort  has  been  left  untried 
to  bring  the  United  States  into  their  circle,  as  a  new  subject  for 
their  tricks  and  maneuvers. 

The  philosophical  student  of  history,  who  looks  deeply  into 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  5 

the  springs  and  currents  of  national  sympathy  and  antipathy, 
will  be  struck  with  admiration  at  the  completeness  of  our  sepa- 
ration from  European  politics,  so  that  no  friendships  ensnared  us, 
no  professions  seduced  us,  no  fears  intimidated  us,  to  swerve  from 
our  isolated  position.  From  a  century  of  dependence,  we  rose 
by  a  leap  to  independence.  We  had  a  war  with  France  and  a 
war  with  England,  to  prove  that  we  were  independent,  and  to 
show  that  we  dared  and  were  able  to  assert  and  enjoy  our  rights, 
as  an  independent  power,  unconnected  with  the  political  fortunes 
of  European  nations.  And  we  began  to  be  understood  in  Eu- 
rope. The  result  was  we'll  stated  by  Mr.  Richard  Rush,  who  was 
our  Minister  to  England  from  1817  to  1825.  In  the  second  series 
of  his  u  Memoranda  of  a  Residence  at  the  Court  of  London,"  he 
says : 

"  Let  me  here  give  brief  expression  to  a  feeling  I  often  had  during  my  mission  ; 
one  which  is  common,  I  suppose,  to  every  minister  of  the  United  States  abroad. 
It  is,  his  feeling  of  entire  independence  of  the  combinations  and  movements 
going  on  among  other  powers.  Properly  improved,  this  makes  his  personal  situ- 
ation agreeable,  as  well  with  the  court  where  he  may  be  residing,  as  with  the 
entire  diplomatic  corps.  For  his  country,  he  has  only  to  be  just  and  fear  not. 
The  smaller'  Powers  cannot  have  this  calm  assurance  ;  and  the  representatives  of 
the  Great  Powers  naturally  respect  the  office  of  American  Minister,  from  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  resources  and  growing  power  of  the  nation  that  sends  him  ;  and  also 
(some  of  them)  from  dreaming  of  contingencies  which  may  make  the  friendship 
of  the  United  States  desirable,  though  their  maxim  be,  '  Peace  and  commerce 
with  all  nations,  entangling  alliance  with  none.'  One  of  the  members  of  the  corps 
who  witnessed  the  salutations  passing  between  Lord  Castlereagh  and  myself, 
said  to  me  a  few  minutes  afterwards,  '  How  happy  you  must  feel  in  these  times 
when  none  of  us  know  what  is  to  happen  in  Europe  ! — you  belong  to  us  (meaning 
the  corps),  yet  you  are  independent.' "  pp.  357-8. 

Such  was  the  practical  estimate  formed  by  diplomatists  of  the 
actual  situation  of  the  United  States  among  the  nations  of  Eu- 
rope, as  observed  by  one  of  the  most  calm  and  cautious  of  our 
statesmen,,  with  ample  experience.  We  were  among  them,  but 
not  of  them ;  concerned  in  all  that  concerned  them,  on  the  ground 
of  common  humanity  and  equal  civilization  ;  liable  to  be  affected 
in  our  interests  by  all  their  movements,  which  we  were  therefore 
obliged  to  comprehend  and  to  watch ;  but  not  forming  a  part  of 
their  "  system,"  to  be  dictated  to  by  their  will,  to  be  assigned  our 
place  by  their  arbitrament,  or  to  be  disposed  of  in  accordance 
with  their  varying  interests  or  arbitrary  caprices.  We  can  ap 


fi  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

predate  the  air  of  satisfaction,  not  to  say  pride,  with  which  this 
experience  was  recorded  and  published.  It  was  gratifying  to  the 
highest  feelings  of  patriotism.  To  realize  the  importance  of  the 
facts  thus  elicited,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  briefly  the  nature  of 
the  European  Political  System,  of  which  our  able  representative 
was  so  glad  that  we  were  not  a  member. 

The  Political  System  of  Europe,  as  it  existed  at  the  time  of 
Mr.  Rush's  residence  in  England,  was  the  result  of  the  political 
history  of  Europe  for  three  centuries,  beginning  with  the  reign  of 
Charles  the  Fifth,  and  ending  with  the  Congress  of  Vienna.  It 
was  the  product  of  its  wars,  treaties,  dyntistic  changes,  and  advan- 
cing intelligence  and  civilization.  In  all  these  changes,  one  dom- 
inant idea  has  been  kept  always  in  view  by  European  statesmen, 
as  more  important  than  any  family  interests  or  any  changes  of 
dynasty  or  form  of  government.  This  paramount  object  of  re- 
gard, this  central  point  of  guidance,  this  first  meridian  of  all 
political  reckonings,  is  oftenest  designated  by  the  name  of  the 
"  Balance  of  Power."  Personal  ambitions  and  family  interests, 
war  and  peace,  have  been  made  subordinate  to  this.  The  most 
elaborate  treatises  on  public  affairs  have  had  for  their  object  the 
elucidation  of  this  subject,  in  its  various  bearings  and  conse- 
quences. To  understand  this  subject,  in  its  infinite  complications 
and  implications,  and  to  be  able  to  steer  among  them  all  a  suc- 
cessful course  of  administration  of  affairs,  made  a  man  a  states- 
man. Of  this  whole  complex  system  of  relations,  obligations, 
and  liabilities,  the  Balance  of  Power  was  so  much  the  central 
principle,  that  the  phrase  is  customarily  used  by  writers  to  denote 
the  whole  Political  System,  including  all  other  elements  as  sub- 
ordinate. 

Yattel's  definition  of  a  Balance  of  Power — "  Such  a  disposi- 
tion of  things  as  that  no  one  potentate  or  state  shall  be  able  ab- 
solutely to  predominate  and  prescribe  to  others" — expresses  rather 
the  ostensible  and  praiseworthy  object  which  ought  to  be  aimed 
at,  than  the  secret  motives  by  which  governments  are  commonly 
actuated,  or  the  results  actually  attained  by  this  great  political 
system.  The  circle  of  nations  who  recognize  this  system  are 
supposed  to  maintain  an  understanding  among  themselves,  that 
no  one  among  them  can  interfere  with 'the  essential  rights  of  an- 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  7 

other  among  them,  without  exposing  itself  to  the  censure  of  the 
rest,  and  then  to  the  danger  of  a  counter  interference  and  coali- 
tion for  the  redress  of  the  wrong.  Also,  that  no  one  nation 
ought  to  acquire  such  surpassing  power  as  to  be  able  to  defy  this 
censure,  or  to  domineer  at  pleasure  over  any  or  all  of  the  rest. 
The  coalitions  to  curb  the  grasping  ambition  of  Charles  the  Fifth, 
of  Louis  the  Fourteenth,  and  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  are  in- 
stances of  gigantic  struggle  and  vast  combination  of  strength  for 
the  preservation  of  the  Balance  of  Power.  The  occasions, 
methods,  and  limitations,  of  this  system  have  become  a  complex 
science,  taxing  the  powers  of  the  profoundest  scholars.  Its  ap- 
plication to  the  ever  varying  exigencies  created  by  the  ambition 
of  kings,  the  profligacy  of  their  ministers,  and  the  constantly 
shifting  conditions  of  nations,  has  taxed  to  the  utmost  the  sagacity 
of  the  wisest  statesmen.  It  is  a  problem  in  history,  which  we 
shall  not  now  attempt  to  solve,  whether  this  theory  of  the  Bal- 
ance of  Power,  or  the  entire  Political  System  of  which  it  com- 
monly stands  as  the  exponent,  has  been  a  blessing  to  mankind  or 
a  curse ;  whether  it  has  prevented  more  wars  than  it  has  caused, 
or  has  mitigated  rather  than  aggravated  the  severities  of  war  ; 
whether  it  has  improved  or  injured  the  cause  of  liberty,  and  ad- 
vanced or  retarded  the  progress  of  civilization.  There  are  not 
wanting  able  and  weighty  opinions  on  either  side  of  the  question. 
After  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon,  the  Congress  of  Vienna 
assumed  the  restoration  of  this  great  political  system,  and  placed 
its  control  and  conservation  under  the  care  of  the  Five  Great 
Powers,  as  they  were  termed — Great  Britain,  France,  Austria, 
Kussia,  and  Prussia,  as  a  sort  of  Executive  Committee,  whose 
united  determinations  were  to  bind  all  the  rest.  The  British 
Government,  indeed,  on  technical  grounds  and  for  domestic  rea- 
sons, declined  to  become  in  form  a  party  to  the  so-called  Holy 
Alliance.  But  it  participated  fully  in  all  the  negotiations,  and 
approved  all  the  arrangements  then  made,  and  has  at  all  times 
maintained  and  relied  upon  the  adjustments  then  agreed  upon. 
Its  recent  letter- of  remonstrance  on  behalf  of  Poland,  is  based 
upon  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  of  Vienna.  The  practical  ad- 
ministration of  the  machinery  so  artistically  arranged  at  Vienna, 
it  must  be  confessed,  has  partaken  quite  largely  of  the  ordinary 


8  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

irregularities  of  human  institutions.  A  man  setting  himself 
down  to  study  that  arrangement  and  anticipate  its  results  in  forty 
years'  operation,  would  hardly  bring  out  the  actual  state  of  things 
now  existing  in  Europe.  How  it  works  in  practice,  we  may 
learn,  at  least  in  part,  from  an  eminent  living  writer,  'whose  work 
is  just  now  exciting  great  attention  in  the  highest  circles  of 
Europe. 

Mr.  Kinglake  devotes  the  second  chapter  of  his  History  of  the 
Crimean  Campaign  to  a  delineation  of  the  Public  Law,  of  Eu- 
rope, which  he  terms  the  Supreme  Usage,  and  which  he  treats 
from  the  English  point  of  view,  in  a  very  original  as  well  '<\&very 
English  manner.  The  opening  paragraphs  are  as  follows  : 

"  The  Supreme  Law  or  Usage  which  forms  the  safeguard  of  Europe  is  not  in  a 
state  so  perfect  and  symmetrical  that  the  elucidation  of  it  will  bring  any  ease  or 
comfort  to  a  mind  accustomed  to  crave  for  well-defined  rules  of  conduct.  It  is  a 
rough  and  wild-grown  system,  and  its  observance  can  only  be  enforced  by  opin- 
ion, and  by  the  belief  that  it  truly  coincides  with  the  interests  of  every  power 
which  is  called  upon  to  obey  it ;  but  practically,  it  has  been  made  to  achieve  a  fair 
portion  of  that  security  which  sanguine  men  might  hope  to  see  resulting  from 
the  adoption  of  an  international  code.  Perhaps  under  a  system  ideally  formed 
for  the  safety  of  nations  and  for  the  peace  of  the  world,  a  wrong  done  to  one 
state  would  be  instantly  treated  as  a  wrong  done  to  all.  But  in  the  actual  state 
of  the  world  there  is  no  such  bond  between  nations.  It  is  true  that  the  law  of 
nations  does  not  stint  the  right  of  executing  justice,  and  that  any  Power  may 
either  remonstrate  against  a  wrong  done  to  another  state,  great  or  small,  or  may 
endeavor,  if  so  it  chooses,  to  prevent  or  redress  the  wrong  by  force  of  arms ;  but 
the  duties  of  states  in  this  respect  are  very  far  from  being  co-extensive  with  their 
rights. 

"  In  Europe,  all  states  except  the  Five  Great  Powers  are  exempt  from  the  duty 
of  watching  over  the  general  safety ;  and  even  a  state  which  is  one  of  the  five 
great  Powers  is  not  practically  under  an  obligation  to  sustain  the  cause  of  justice 
unless  its  perception  of  the  wrong  is  re-enforced  by  a  sense  of  its  own  interests. 
Moreover,  no  state,  unless  it  be  combating  for  its  very  life,  can  be  expected  to 
engage  in  a  war  without  a  fair  prospect  of  success.  But  when  the  three  circum- 
stances are  present — when  a  wrong  is  being  done  against  any  state,  great  or  small, 
when  that  wrong  in  its  present  or  ulterior  consequences  happens  to  be  injurious 
to  one  of  the  five  great  Powers,  and  finally,  when  the  great  Power  so  injured  is 
competent  to  wage  war  with  fair  hopes,  then  Europe  is  accustomed  to  expect  that 
the  great  Power  which  is  sustaining  the  hurt  will  be  enlivened  by  the  smart  of 
the  wound,  and  for  its  own  sake,  as  well  as  for  the  public  weal,  will  be  ready  to 
come  forward  in  arms,  or  to  labor  for  the  formation  of  such  leagues  as  may  be 
needed  for  upholding  the  cause  of  justice.  If  a  power  fails  in  this  duty  to  itself 
and  to  Europe,  it  gradually  becomes  lowered  in  the  opinion  of  mankind,  and 
happily  there  is  no  historic  lesson  more  true  than  that  which  teaches  all  rulers 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  9 

that  a  moral  degradation  of  this  sort  is  speedily  followed  by  disasters  of  such  a 
kind  as  to  be  capable  of  being  expressed  in  arithmetic."  pp.  36,  37. 

"  The  obligation  imposed  upon  a  great  state  by  this  Usage  is  not  a  heavy  yoke, 
for,  after  all,  it  does  no  more  than  impel  a  sovereign  by  fresh  motives  and  by 
larger  sanctions,  to  be  watchful  in  the  protection  of  his  own  interests.  It  quick- 
ens his  sense  of  honor.  It  warns  him  that  if  he  tamely  stands  witnessing  a  wrong 
reckoning  which  awaits  him  in  his  own  dishonored  country,  but  that  he  will  also 
be  held  guilty  of  a  great  European  defection,  and  that  his  delinquency  will  be 
punished  by  the  reproach  of  nations,  by  their  scorn  and  distrust,  and  at  last  per- 
haps, by  their  desertion  of  him  in  his  hour  of  trial.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Usage  assures  a  Prince  that  if  he  will  but  be  firm  in  coming  forward  to  re- 
dress a  piiblic  wrong  which  chances  to  be  collaterally  hurtful  to  his  own  s^ite,  his 
cause  will  be  singularly  ennobled  and  strengthened  by  the  acknowledgment  of 
the  principle  that,  although  he  is  fighting  for.  his  own  people,  he  is  also  fighting 
for  every  nation  in  the  world  which  is  interested  in  putting  down  the  wrong- 
doer. Of  course,  neither  this  nor  any  other  human  law  or  usage  can  have  any 
real  worth  except  in  proportion  to  the  respect  and  obedience  with  which  it  is  re- 
garded ;  but,  since  the  Usage  exacts  nothing  from  any  state  except  what  is  really 
for  its  own  good  as  well  as  for  the  general  weal,  it  is  very  much  obeyed,  and  is 
always  respected  in  Europe."  p.  40. 

"To  keep  alive  the  dread  of  a  just  and  avenging  war,  should  be  the  care  of 
every  statesman  who  would  faithfully  labor  to  preserve  the  peace  of  Europe.  It 
is  a  poor  use  of  time  to  urge  a  king  or  an  emperor  to  restrain  his  ambition  and 
his  covetousness,  for  these  are  passions  eternal,  always  to  be  looked  for,  and  al- 
ways to  be  combatted.  For  such  a  prince,  the  only  good  bridle  is  the  fear  of 
war."  p.  41. 

It  is  only  by  a  figure  of  speech  that  the  workings  of  such  a 
rickety  machine  as  this  are  called  Law.  And  yet  they  are  held 
to  impose  a  certain  obligation  upon  such  nations  as  can  be  held 
within  the  circle.  And  they  often  serve  the  Powers  as  conveni- 
ent pretexts  and  apologies  for  interference  in  the  affairs  of  others, 
whether  right  or  wrong.  Some  instructive  views  of  the  practical 
operation  of  this  system,  in  the  case  of  what  are  called  Minor 
Powrers,  may  be  gathered  from  a  cursory  examination  of  the  his- 
tory of  Modern  Greece.  About  forty  years  ago,  the  people  of 
Greece,  of  their  own  accord  and  by  their  own  motion,  threw  off 
the  intolerable  yoke  of  Turkey,  and  declared  themselves  an  inde- 
pendent nation.  Thereupon,  and  forthwith,  the  Three  Great 
Powers  took  the  nation  in  charge,  forbade  the  further  attempts 
of  Turkey  to  subdue  them,  and  required  of  them  to  confine  their 
country  forever  within  certain  narrow  limits,  to  become  a  hered- 
itary monarchy,  and  to  choose  a  king  for  themselves  from  among 
the  royal  families  of  Europe,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Three 

2 


!o  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Powers.  They  also  assumed  the  right  of  requiring  the  funding 
of  the  revolutionary  debt,  nominally  of  fourteen  millions  of  dol- 
lars, although  only  live  millions  had  reached  the  national  treas- 
ury. In  1832,  the  Powers  interfered  again,  creating  another  debt 
of  ten  millions,  of  which  about  one  million  went  for  roads  and 
other  beneficial  objects,  and  the  rest  was  absorbed  by  the  harpies 
of  King  Otho's  court.  In  1854^  the  debt  had  grown  to  sixty 
millions,  and  there  was  another  interference  of  the  Three  Pow- 
ers, resulting  in  a  requisition  that  Greece  should  reserve  annually 
900,0>4)0  francs — nearly  $200,000 — for  her  creditors,  out  of  a 
revenue  barely  reaching  four  millions  per  annum,  in  a  country 
where  material  civilization  is  far  in  arrear.  This  requirement, 
after  some  years'  delay,  was  complied  with  for  one  year,  and  then 
followed  a  revolution.  But  Greece  is  still  held  by  the  bondage 
of  this  debt  under  the  tutelage  of  the  ever-present  Three  Powers, 
who  allow  no  free  choice  to  the  people  but  to  try  over  again  the 
disastrous  experiment  so  fully  tried  out  in  thirty  years  of  unhap- 
piness,  of  another  hereditary  dynasty,  under  a  king  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Powers.  And  the  millstone  of  a  debt  of  sixty 
millions,  for  which  Greece  never  received  above  one-tenth  of  the 
value,  is  still  bound  about  her  neck,  and  the  yearly  payment  is  to 
be  coerced  by  the  Powers,  on  penalty  of  war,  and  subjugation, 
and  national  extinction.  Such  is  the  working  of  the  Political 
System  of  Europe,  as  organized  by  the  Congress  of  Yienna,  and 
administered  by  the  Great  Powers.  Some  American  writers  have 
spoken  of  the  Holy  Alliance  as  a  thing  of  the  past.  Greece  finds 
it  a  living  Dominion,  from  whose  grasp  she  as  yet  sees  no  possible 
way  of  escape.  Perhaps  some  reflecting  minds  will  trace  out 
from  this  example  an  analysis  of  the  principles  involved  in  the 
Treaty  of  London,  under  which  the  Mexican  republic  is  invaded 
by  a  European  coalition  to  compel  the  payment  of  debts  and 
claims  even  more  exorbitant  than  those  under  which  Greece  is 
pressed  to  the  earth,  and  will  thus  learn  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
the  extension  of  the  Political  System  of  Europe  to  the  American 
continent. 

This  sodality  of  nations,  thus  imposed  upon  Europe  by  the 
Congress  of  Yienna,  and  administered  by  the  Five  Great  Powers, 
or  any  three,  or  even  two  of  them,  [either  England  or  France 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  11 

being -always  one],  assumed  the  right  to  interfere  at  will  with  the 
internal  policy  of  any  state,  and  to  require  such  an  administration 
of  its  domestic  aifairs  as  they  judged  to  be  necessary  to  what  was 
styled  "  the  tranquility  of  Europe."  No  state  was  allowed  to 
manage  its  own  concerns  or  construct  its  own  government,  accord- 
ing to  its  own  judgment  of  what  was  most  for  the- welfare  of  its 
own  people,  but  each  was  required  to  conform  its  economy  to  a 
pattern  laid  down  by  the  managing  Powers.  And  this  prerogative 
of  review  and  control  was  held  to  extend  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
ring,  and  nations  outside  of-  Europe  were  to  be  coerced  into  con- 
formity to  the  will  of  this  overshadowing  conspiracy.  This  tre- 
mendous machinery  was  guided  by  men  of  the  highest  sagacity 
and  largest  experience,  and  thoroughly  devoted  to  its  objects. 
They  were  too  shrewd  to  attempt  the  reduction  of  all  governments 
to  the  uniformity  of  a  common  pattern,  for  they  knew  that  diver- 
sity is  inseparable  from  humanity.  But  they  evidently  had  an 
ideal  form  or  standard  of  perfection,  and  made  it  their  constant 
aim  to  bring  all  governments  into  as  near  conformity  with  this  as 
circumstances  would  allow,  and  to  repress  all  tendencies  in  the 
contrary  direction.  The  beau-ideal  of  the  Holy  Alliance  was  an 
absolute  monarchy,  hereditary,  and  both  imposed  and  maintained 
by  military  force.  Constitutional  monarchy,  in  its  various  grades, 
was  recognized  where  it  could  not  be  avoided,  with  the  proviso 
that  the  constitution  must  derive  its  validity  from  the  grant  of  the 
monarch,  and  not  by  the  will  of  the  people.  And  then  they  held 
it  to  be  quite  competent  for  the  sovereign  to  resume  his  grant,  and 
set  aside  the  constitution,  whenever  he  thought  that  the  interests 
of  the  monarchy  required.  So  a  legislature,  with  powers  more  or 
less  extended,  could  be  tolerated,  provided  it  owed  its  being  to  the 
gift  of  the  crown.  But  it  was  not  allowed  that  the  people  should 
create  a  legislature,  and  then  offer  to  the  king  the  privilege  of 
reigning  under  such  limited  prerogative  as  they  chose  to  prescribe. 
Revolutions  might  be  permitted  to  succeed,  where  they  resulted 
in  hereditary  governments,  imposed  by  the  will  of  the  Alliance, 
and  maintained  by  military  force.  The  antiquity  of  the  Swiss 
republics,  with  their  comparative  insignificance,  and  perhaps  the 
difficulty  of  their  subjugation,  permitted  them  to  continue ;  but 
no  other  republic  was  to  exist  in  Europe,  nor  elsewhere  if  it  could 


12  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

be  prevented.  The  idea  was  utterly  rejected,  that  it  is  in  the 
power  of  a  people,  by  their  own  will,  and  without  asking  leave  or 
receiving  assent  from  any  body,  to  create  a  valid  government,  such 
that  to  revolt  against  it  should  be  a  crime  by  human  and  divine 
law.  To  this  day,  the  reactionaries  and  conservatives  of  Europe 
do  not  allow  that  the  authority  of  a  government,,  thus  originated, 
is  of  the  same  nature  with  that  of  one  of  their  old  monarchies. 
For  this  reason  the  sober  mind  of  Europe  is  not  shocked  at  the 
wickedness  of  the  American  secession,  because  they  do  not  con- 
sider the  casting  off  of  such  a  government  an  offense  against  good 
morals.  Our  government  is  generally  regarded  in  Europe  as  a 
mere  aggregation  of  individuals,  to  and  from  which  men  may 
come  and  go  at  pleasure,  without  incurring  any  moral  obligation 
or  violating  any  moral  principle. 

It  is  upon  this  ground  that  we  are  to  explain  what 'appeared  to 
Americans  so  shameless  in  the  conduct  of  the  French  Emperor, 
when,  in  his  letter  to  General  Forey,  he  directed  him  to  treat  any 
government  he  might  find  in  Mexico  as  merely  provisional.  The 
government  of  President  Juarez  is  unquestionably  the  constitu- 
tional government  of  Mexico,  and  it  has  been  supported  by  the 
great  body  of  the  people  as  such — the  malcontent  priests  and  their 
followers,  and  a  few  factious  chiefs,  only  excepted.  But  it  origi- 
nated solely  in  the  voice  of  the  people,  and  neither  had  nor  asked 
any  other  sanction  than  the  popular  will ; — and  therefore  Europe 
pronounces  it  only  provisional,  and  hence  liable  to  be  replaced 
by  another  of  equal  authority  by  any  faction  which  could  get 
possession  of  the  Capital,  so  as  to  wield  for  a  moment  the  forms 
of  government  at  the  accustomed  seat  of  government.  Another 
point  gained  by  this  subtlety  is  to  give  color  to  the  pretext  by 
which  Mexico  is  held  to  be  bound  by  the  acts  of  the  transient 
Usurper,  Miramon ;  for  if  Juarez'  government  is  only  provision- 
al, Miramon's  had  as  much  authority  as  his.  And  on  no  better 
ground  than  this,  the  Three  Great  Powers,  Great  Britain,  France, 
and  Spain,  formed  a  coalition  to  invade  Mexico,  just  as  it  was 
recovering  from  the  disorders  of  a  long  revolution,  in  order  to 
coerce  the  payment  of  Miramon's  bonds,  for  which  the  scoundrel 
bankers  had  paid  the  plundering  brigand  only  at  the  rate  of  four 
or  five  cents  on  the  dollar.  And  by  the  same  rule,  if  Jeff.  Davis 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  l-> 

had  been  smart  enough  to  seize  Washington  City  in  1861,  and 
inaugurate  himself  as  President  of  the  United  States,  they  might 
by  and  by  be  making  war  against  us  to  compel  the  payment  of 
his  loans,  for  his  government  would  have  been  provisional,  and 
just  as  valid  in  fact  as  Mr.  Lincoln's  ;  for  Europe  decides  in  the 
case  of  Mexico  that  a  constitutional  government,  sanctioned  alone 
by  the  will  of  the  people,  is  "  only  provisional." 

If  there  had  been  any  doubt  as  to  the  real  intent  of 'the  lan- 
guage employed  in  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  allied 
Powers  and  in  the  Emperor's  letter,  it  is  all  now  dispelled  by  the 
action  of  the  French  commander  since  he  got  possession  of  the 
city  of  Mexico.  He  knew  the  object  of  the  expedition,  and  what 
his  master  meant  fyy  his  orders.  He  has  treated  the  constitu- 
tional government  of  Mexico  as  no  valid  government,  as  a  merely 
provisional  arrangement,  a  locum  tenens,  until  military  power 
could  come  in  and  grant  to  the  people  a  government  conformed 
to  the  fundamental  ideas  of  Europe.  He  first  appoints  by  his 
own  authority  a  commission  of  three  persons,  one  a  renegade 
Mexican,  the  instigator  of  the  invasion,  Almonte ;  the  second, 
the  Archbishop,  a  servant  of  the  sovereign  of  Rome,  to  give  the 
sanction  of  the  Pope  to  the  proceeding ;  the  third,  Salas,  the 
most  unprincipled  of  all  the  chiefs  wTho  have  aided  to  keep  Mex- 
ico in  turmoil  for  a  generation.  These  three  convene  a  Council 
of  Notables,  selected  by  themselves,  who  proceed  at  once  to  de- 
clare Mexico  an  Empire,  and  appoint  the  Archduke  Maximilian 
of  Austria  for  Emperor,  with  the  provision  that,  if  he  declines, 
the  Emperor  of  France  shall  designate  a  person  to  be  their  mon- 
arch. Here  we  have  the  true  intent  of  the  ambiguous  phraseol- 
ogy which  was  used  throughout  by  the  allied  powers,,  of  their 
intention  to  secure  to  unfortunate  Mexico  the  blessings  of  a  stable 
government.  They  meant  a  frame  of  government  not  origina- 
ting with  the  people,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  inherent  rights, 
and  which  they  wrere  always  at  liberty  to  change  for  good  cause, 
but  one  granted  to  the  people  by  some  authority  above  them.  It 
is  a  legitimate  outgo  of  the  political  system  of  Europe,  as  ad- 
justed by  the  Congress  of  Vienna. 

We  have  devoted  the  more  space  to  this  attempted  analysis 
of  the  political  system  of  Europe,  in  order  the  better  to  show  its 


14  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

antagonism  to  the  ideas  which  have  been  adopted  in  America, 
both  concerning  the  origin  of  valid  governments,  and  as  to  the 
mutual  relations  of  states  or  nations.  But  few  words  are  neces- 
sary to  explain  the  system  which  exists  among  the  nations  of  this 
continent,  and  to  make  it  manifest  that  the  two  systems  cannot 
exist  together  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  without  creating  a 
constant  and  irrepressible  conflict  of  irreconcilable  ideas.  It  is 
the  fundumental  idea  that  underlies  our  institutions,  that  the  state 
is  for  the  people,  and  not  the  people  for  the  state  ;  that  the  state 
is  valued  for  its  benefits  to  the  people,  rather  than  the  people  for 
the  greatness  it  adds  to  the  state  ;  that  the  people  are,  in  the  or- 
der of  nature,  before  the  state,  which  they  create  by  their  will ; 
and  that,  in  like  manner,  the  state  is  before  the  government, 
which  it  creates  for  itself,  and  may  alter  as  it  sees  lit.  Hence  the 
stability  of  the  government  rests  in  the  intelligence  and  patriot- 
ism of  the  people,  and  is  promoted  by  whatever  expands  the 
minds  and  strengthens  the  principles  of  every  class  in  society. 
The  American  Land  system,  by  which  the  laborer  owns  the  land 
he  cultivates,  and  the  system  of  Common  Schools,  by  which  every 
man  learns  to  know  his  own  rights  and  those  of  his  neighbors, 
are  natural  products  of  the  American  Political  System.  The 
government  neither  stands  on  the  grant  of  a  superior,  nor  secures 
itself  by  keeping  the  people  in  subjection.  For  the  sake  of  in- 
ternational comity  and  good  neighborhood,  it  asks  recognition, 
and  courtesy,  and  justice  from  other  nations,  as  its  equals  in  rank, 
but  would  peril  everything  rather  than  concede  that  it  owes  its 
validity  to  the  grant  of  any  potentate,  or  depends  for  its  contin- 
uance upon  the  strength  of  any  foreign  power.  It  would  carry 
us  over.too  much  ground,  to  show  in  detail  how  perfectly  such  a 
government  must  shape  itself  to  the  people,  and  how  such  a  peo- 
ple would  grow  up  to  their  government,  until  it  would  become 
impossible  to  mold  either  the  people  or  the  government  into 
compliance  with  the  opposite  political  system.  It  were  more 
practicable  to  exterminate  them  from  the  face  of  the  earth  than 
to  make  them  patient  and  submissive  subjects  of  a  government 
imposed  upon  them  without  their  consent.  It  is  more  to  our 
present  purpose  to  consider  the  workings  of  this  political  system 
upon  the  international  relations  of  independent  states.  And  the 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  15 

first  thought  which  suggests  itself  is,  that  each  state,  creating  its 
own  government  for  its  own  purposes,  will  necessarily  have  such 
a  government  as  it  prefers,  such  as  it  can  create,  can  administer, 
and  can  support,  and  defend — and  no  other.  And  hence  it  does 
not  admit  the  right  of  any  combination  of  states  to  judge  for 
another  state  what  is  best  for  it,  6r  to  dictate  to  another  what  it 
may  or  may  not  have  for  itself.  The  people  living  under  such 
institutions  would  feel  an  interest  in  the  progress  of  civil  liberty 
everywhere,  and  would  extend  a  cheering  sympathy  to  any  peo- 
ple who  were  struggling  worthily  to  obtain  the  boon  of  self-gov- 
ernment; but  the  nation  itself  would  maintain  a  pure  and 
impartial  neutrality,  unless  some  extreme  case  should  arise  in 
which  our  own  safety  was  involved,  or  where  the  voice  of  out- 
raged humanity  might  call  for  interposition.  We  would  neither 
attempt  to  force  such  institutions  upon  the  unwilling,  nor  pur- 
chase them  for  the  incompetent.  Whatever  people  would  have 
them  must  win  them ;  and  if  they  would  enjoy  them,  must  keep 
them.  In  a  word,  the  principle  of  non-intervention,  which  some 
statesmen  are  vainly  endeavoring  to  graft  upon  the  political  sys- 
tem of  Europe,  is  the  natural  growth  of  the  American  system, 
or  rather,  it  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  life  of  society  on  this 
Western  Continent — to  be  asserted  on  all  occasions,  and  main- 
tained at  all  hazards. 

The  European  system  in  its  full-blown  development  under 
the  domination  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  brought  all  Europe  under 
its  control.  The  final  struggle  for  popular  rights  was  made  in 
Spain,  where  the  Cortes  adopted  a  constitution  by  their  own 
authority,  and  compelled  the  king  to  accept  its  conditions.  Fer- 
dinand the  YII  appealed  to  the  Holy  Alliance  to  restore  him  to 
his  legitimate  prerogative,  of  governing  by  hereditary  right,  and 
making  his  people  contented  with  such  privileges  as  he  saw  fit 
to  give  them.  It  was  a  test  case,  and  the  absolutists  were  equal 
to  the  occasion.  By  their  advice  and  consent,  France  sent  an 
overwhelming  army  into  Spain,  in  aid  of  the  king,  and  totally 
broke  the  power  of  the  popular  party,  leaving  the  throne  as  ab- 
solute as  any  in  Europe.  Europe  was  tranquilized,  in  the  Vienna 
sense,  and  the  Holy  Alliance  was  at  liberty  to  turn  its  attention 
to  other  continents  for  conquests  to  win,  or  dangers  to  repress. 


IB  Tlie  Monroe  Doctrine. 

But  while  these  struggles  had  been  going  on  in  Europe,  and 
partly  in  consequence  of  them,  a  great  change  had  come  over  the 
political  aspect  of  the  JS"ew  World.  Our  country  no  longer  stood 
alone  as  the  exponent  of  the  American  political  system,  and  the 
object  of  absolutist  jealousy.  But  this  republic  found  itself  at 
the  head  of  a  glorious  sisterhoofhof  free  and  independent  states. 
The  whole  congeries  of  Spanish  colonies  on  the  continent  of 
America,  although  in  apparently  the  least  possible  preparation 
for  the  enjoyment  of  free  institutions,  had  been  first  thrown  loose 
from  the  control  of  the  parent  country  by  the  breaking  up  of  the 
regular  government,  through  the  ambition  of  Bonaparte ;  and 
having  thus  been  compelled  to  assume  the  functions  of  self-gov- 
ernment, they  had  severally,  each  by  and  for  itself,  successfully 
asserted  and  won  their  independence.  The  case  is  presented  in 
a  statesman-like  way  by  Mr.  Adams,  when  Secretary  of  State 
under  President  Monroe,  in  his  letter  of  instructions  to  Mr.  An- 
derson, the  first  American  Minister-  to  one  of  the  Spanish  lie- 
publics,  dated  May  27th,  1823  : 

"  The  revolution  of  the  Spanish  Colonies  was  not  caused  by  the  oppression  un- 
der which  they  had  been  held,  however  great  it  had  been.  Their  independence 
was  first  forced  upon  them  by  the  temporary  subjugation  of  Spain  herself  to  a 
foreign  power.  They  were,  by  that  event,  cast  upon  themselves,  and  compelled 
to  establish  governments  of  their  own.  Spain,  through  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
her  own  revolutions,  has  clung  to  the  desperate  hope  of  retaining,  or  of  reclaim- 
ing them  to  her  own  control ;  and  has  waged,  to  the  extent  of  her  power,  a  dis- 
astrous war,  to  that  extent.  In  the  mind  of  every  rational  man,  it  has  been  for 
years  apparent  that  Spain  can  never  succeed  to  recover  her  dominion  where  it 
has  been  abjured  ;  nor  is  it  possible  that  she  can  long  retain  the  small  remnant 
of  her  authority  yet  acknowledged  in  some  spots  of  the  South  American 
continent." 

It  was  a  great  and  glorious  change  for  America,  and  was  not 
unappreciated  by  the  great  men  who  were  then  at  the  head  of 
affairs  in  this  country.  Mr.  Webster  said,  in  his  celebrated  ora- 
tion at  the  laying  of  the  corner  stone  of  the  Bunker  Hill  monu- 
ment, June  17th,  1825,  that  "  among  the  great  events  of  the  half 
century,  we  must  respect  certainly  the  revolution  of  South 
America ;  and  we  are  not  likely  to  overrate  the  importance  of 
that  revolution,  either  to  the  growth  of  the  country  itself,  or  to 
the  rest  of  the  world.  When  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  was 
fought,  the  existence  of  South  America  was  scarcely  felt  in  the 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  17 

civilized  world.  The  thirteen  little  colonies  of  North  America 
habitually  called  themselves  the  continent.  Borne  down  by 
colonial  subjugation,  monopoly,  and  bigotry,  those  vast  regions 
of  the  South  were  hardly  visible  above  the  horizon.  But  in  our 
day  there  has  been,  as  it  were,  a  new  creation.  The  southern 
hemisphere  emerges  from  the  sea.  Its  lofty  mountains  begin  to 
lift  themselves  into  the  light  of  heaven ;  its  broad  and  fertile 
plains  stretch  out  in  beauty  to  the  eye  of  civilized  man  ;  and  at 
the  bidding  of  the  voice  of  political  liberty,  the  waters  of  dark- 
ness retire." 

With  the  exception  of  the  British  Provinces  north  of  us,  the 
power  of  Europe  was  driven  from  the  continent.  From  the  lakes 
to  Cape  Horn,  every  foot  of  land  had  ceased  to  belong  to  the 
European  political  system,  or  to  be  in  any  way  responsible  for  the 
"  Balance  of  Power"  in  the  Old  "World.  Mexico,  indeed,  tem- 
porarily, and  Brazil  permanently,  had  adopted  monarchical  forms 
of  government,  but  they  were  entirely  American  in  interest. 
Fortunately,  we  had  men  in  the  administration  of  our  govern- 
ment, who  possessed  both  the  wisdom  and  the  patriotism  to  com- 
prehend the  situation,  and  act  as  the  occasion  required.  It  was 
the  golden  period  of  our  political  history.  The  devotion  to  pub- 
lic interests  which  characterized  the  days  of  the  revolution  had 
not  died  out,  for  Jefferson,  Madison,  Marshall,  Rufus  King,  and 
many  of  their  compatriots,  were  still  alive.  The  native  sagacity 
of  our  early  statesmen  which  had  baffled  the  diplomatic  skill  of 
Europe,  had  been  ripened  by  the  practical  experience  of  thirty 
years  in  the  administration  of  affairs  at  home  and  abroad.  Pri- 
vate interest  had  not  become  so  large  as  to  withdraw  most  of  the 
ablest  men  from  public  service.  Party  spirit  had  not  eaten  out 
the  keen  sense  of  what  becomes  the  honor  of  the  country.  And 
slvery  had  not  yet  extinguished  patriotism  in  half  the  states  of  the 
Union.  It  was  in  the  lull  of  party  strife  called  "  the  era  of  good 
feelings."  It  was  the  transition  period  between  the  patriotic  in- 
experience of  our  infant  government  and  the  dominant  selfish- 
ness of  late  years.  Some  of  the  men  still  in  public  :  life  had 
participated  in  the  cares  of  government  when  the  indifference,  if 
not  c  ontempt,  of  Europe  for  our  insignificance  was  a  shield  to  us 
against  aggression.  All  of  them  had  participated  in  the  anxious 

3 


18  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

and  critical  period  of  the  "  second  war  of  independence,"  by 
which  we  had  at  length  gained  the  respectful  consideration  of  the 
European  governments.  It  was  a  crisis  in  our  affairs,  and  we 
had  men  who  could  see  its  importance,  and  who  knew  how  to 
meet  it.  And  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  if  the  policy  which 
they  adopted  had  been  properly  carried  out  by  their  successors, 
we  should  have  been  saved  from  many  humiliations,  as  well  as 
many  political  evils,  which  have  been,  or  will  be  our  portion. 

The  Holy  Alliance  had  no  thought  of  letting  this  whole  con- 
tinent slip  out  of  their  hands.  The  instant  that  they  saw  "  the 
tranquility  of  Europe"  restored  by  the  suppression  of  popular 
freedom  in  Spain,  their  attention  was  turned  towards  this  conti- 
nent, with  a  determination  first  to  resubjugate  the  colonies  of 
Spain,  and  then  to  see  what  might  be  done  towards  breaking  up 
the  nest  of  dangerous  principles  in  this  country,  and,  if  possible, 
put  the  United  States  into  a  situation  where  neither  their  doc- 
trines nor  their  examples  should  again  disturb  the  peace  of  Eu- 
rope. The  arrangements  for  this  purpose  were  on  the  eve  of 
being  concluded,  indeed  were  only  waiting  for  the  formal  adhe- 
sion of  England,  when  the  sudden  death  of  the  British  Secretary 
of  Foreign  Affairs  laid  the  foundation  for  a  change  of  policy  in 
that  governnlent,  which  finally  altered  the  whole  course  of  events 
in  Europe. 

The  Marquis  of  Londonderry,  best  known  by  =the  title  of 
Lord  Castlereagh,  which  he  bore  during  the  life  of  his  father, 
died*  by  his  own  hand,  in  a  fit  of  insanity,  caused,  it  was  believ- 
ed, by  excessive  care  and  labor  in  the  session  of  parliament  then 
just  closed.  He  had  managed  the  foreign  affairs  of  England  with 
consummate  ability  during  all  the  latter  years  of  the  great  con- 
tinental conflict  in  Europe,  which  ended  with  the  battle  of 
Waterloo,  and  had  taken  a  distinguished  part  in  all  the  negotia- 
tions for  the  readjustment  of  boundaries  and  other  relations  of 
all  the  countries  of  Europe.  He  was  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
reactionary  governments,  and  as  earnest  as  any  in  favor  of  such 
measures  as  were  thought  best  calculated  to  protect  legitimate 
and  established  dynasties  against  all  future  revolutions  in  favor 

*  In  August,  1822. 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  19 

of  popular  rights  or  democratic  ideas.  For  technical  reasons, 
sucli  as  the  forms  of  administration  in  England,  he  declined  to 
make  his  government  a  party  in  form  to  the  league  of  the  Holy 
Alliance.  But  he  acquiesced,  tacitly  at  least,  in  the  French  in- 
vasion of  Spain  to  suppress  the  Cortes.  And  he  declared  to  Mr. 
Rush,  our  minister,  that  England  would  not  assent  to  any  pacifi- 
cation between  Spain  and  the  Spanish  American  states,  that  did 
not  embrace  the  re-establishment  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Spanish 
crown.* 

The  death  of  Lord  Castlereagh  (Londonderry)  gave  the  -port- 
folio of  Foreign  Affairs  to  Mr.  George  Canning,  who  looked  at 
public  relations  in  a  light  entirely  different  from  that  seen  by  his 
predecessor.  He  is  regarded  as  the  most  philosophical  statesman 
that  Great  Britain  has  had  during  the  century.  An  original 
thinker,  with  sound  common-sense  and  liberal  views,  his  charac- 
ter is  not  to  be  estimated  without  taking  into  consideration  the 
circumstances  and  influences  with  which  he  was  surrounded. f 
He  not  only  declined  to  take  part  in  any  measures  for  the  mili- 
tary coercion  of  the  Spanish  American  States,  but  he  soon  came 
to  look  at  the  full  recognition  of  their  independence  as  the  only 
practicable  method  of  restoring  peace  in  South  America.  At  the 
earliest  practicable  period  after  getting  possession  of  his  office, 

*  "  His  lordship  expressed  regret  that  the  United  States  viewed  the  question  of 
independence  in  the  colonies  differently  from  England^  giving  as  a  reason  the 
probable  weight  of  their  counsels  with  the  colonies ;  so  that,  although  my  gov- 
ernment was  no  formal  party  to  the  mediation,  if,  nevertheless,  it  had  harmo- 
nized with  England  on  the  question  of  independence,  the  hope  would  have  been 
increased  of  seeing  the  dispute  healed  the  sooner,  through  influence  which,  from 
local  and  political  causes,  the  United  States  might  mutually  be  supposed  to  have 
with  the  colonies.  How  far  it  was  practicable  to  settle  it,  giving  back  to  Spain 
her  supremacy,  and  granting  to  the  colonies  a  just  government  under  her  sway, 
was  not  for  him  to  say  ;  but  it  was  the  hope  to  which  the  European  Alliance  still 
clung."  Feb.  12,  1819.  Rush's  Memoranda,  Vol.  II.,  p.  17. 

f  Mr.  Canning  was  an  orator  of  the  highest  rank,  as  well  as  a  wise  statesman 
and  skillful  diplomatist.  His  predecessor's  oratory  was  lampooned  in  "  The  Two- 
penny Post-Bag." 

"  Why  is  a  pump  like  Viscount  Castlereagh  ? 
Because  it  is  an  ugly  thing  of  wood, 
That  up  and  down  its  awkward  arm  doth  play, 
And  coolly  spout,  and  spout,  and  spout  away, 
In  one  weak,  washy,  everlasting  flood." 


20  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

and  prior  to  the  actual  invasion  of  Spain  by  the  French,  under 
the  Duke  D'Angouleme,  he  intimated  to  the  French  government 
that  "  England  considered  the  course  of  events  as  having  sub- 
stantially decided  the  question  of  the  separation  of  the  colonies 
from  Spain,"  although  the  formal  recognition  of  their  indepen- 
dence by  her  might  be  hastened  or  retarded  by  various  causes. 
Mr.  Rush,  in  giving  an  account  of  his  first  formal  diplomatic  in- 
ter view  with  Mr.  Canning,  which  was  on  the  16th  of  August, 
1823,  describes  the  informal  conversation  which  they  held  on 
Spanish  American  affairs.  After  the  regular  business  of  the  in- 
terview was  disposed  of,  Mr.  Rush  introduced  the  subject  by  re- 
ferring to  Mr.  Canning's  intimation  made  to  France,  in  March, 
and  remarked  that  he  considered  that  note  as  a  distinct  avowal 
that  England  would  not  remain  passive  under  any  attempt  by 
France  to  re-subjugate  the  Spanish  colonies.  Mr.  Canning  then 
asked  Mr.  Rush  whether  it  was  practicable  for  the  United  States 
to  go  hand  in  hand  with  England  in  such  a  policy.  Thereupon 
arose  a  free  and  candid  interchange  of  thoughts,  broadly  covering 
the  whole  case.  Mr.  Rush  persistently  pressed  the  inquiry  to 
learn  the  precise  intentions  of  England  in  regard  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  independence  of  the  late  colonies,  as  he  was 
satisfied  that  the  course  of  the  United  States  would  be  influenced 
in  no  small  degree  by  this  consideration.  Mr.  Canning  said  that 
the  question  of  recognition  was  yet  an  open  one,  but  finally  said 
that  he  wras  about  to  send  a  commission  of  inquiry  which  might 
lead  to  recognition.* 

"We  come  now  to  the  point  which  is  of  some  importance,  both 
historical  and  political,  in  its  bearing  on  the  importance  to  be 
attached  to  the  course  taken  by  our  government.  Which  gov- 
ernment, the  American  or  the  English,  is  entitled  to  the  credit 
of  taking  the  lead  in  the  recognition  of  the  Spanish-American 
states  as  independent  nations  ?  On  this  general  question  there  is 
no  uncertainty.  The  United  States  originated  every  step,  in 
sending  out  a  commission  of  inquiry,  then  in  appointing  consuls 
to  these  governments,  and  finally  in  conceding  a  full  recognition 
of  their  nationality,  and  sending  ministers  to  negotiate  treaties 
of  amity  and  commerce.  All  this  was  done  before  the  first  step 
*  Rush,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  400-404. 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  21 

of  inquiry  was  taken  by 'England.*  And  yet  Mr.  Canning  is 
said  to  have  claimed  that  he  "  spoke  the  word  which  called  nations 
into  being  in  the  New  World,  to  redress  the  balance  of  the  Old." 
And  his  biographer,  Stapleton,  labors  to  prove  that  the  bold  po- 
sition taken  by  President  Monroe  originated  in  the  suggestions, 

*  In  his  letter  of  instructions  to  Mr.  Anderson,  before  referred  to,  Mr.  Adams, 
in  narrating  and  justifying  the  course  proposed  by  our  government,  says  that, 
"  In  August,  1818,  a  formal  proposal  was  made  to  the  British  government  for  a  ' 
concerted  and  cotemporary  recognition  of  the  independence  of  Buenos  Ayres, 
then  the  only  one  of  the  South  American  provinces  that  had  no  Spanish  force 
contending  against  it,  within  its  borders  ;  and  where  it  therefore  most  unequiv- 
ocally existed  in  fact.  The  British  government  declined  accepting  the  proposal 
themselves,  without,  however,  expressing  any  disapprobation  of  it ;  without  dis- 
cussing it  as  a  question  of  principle,  and  without  assigning  any  reason  for  the 
refusal,  other  than  that  it  did  not  then  suit  with  their  policy.  It  became  a  sub- 
ject of  consideration  at  the  deliberations  of  the  Congress  of  Aix  la  Chapelle,  in 
October,  1818.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  it  disconcerted  projects  which  were 
there  entertained  of  engaging  the  European  Alliance  in  actual  operations  against 
the  South  Americans,  as  it  is  well  known  that  a  plan  for  their  joint  mediation 
between  Spain  and  her  colonies,  for  restoring  them  to  her  authority,  was  actually 
matured,  and  finally  failed  at  that  place,  only  by  the  refusal  of  Great  Britain  to 
accede  to  the  condition  of  employing  force  eventually  against  the  South  Amer- 
icans for  its  accomplishment.  Some  dissatisfaction  was  manifested  by  several  of 
the  members  of  the  Congress  at  Aix  la  Chapelle,  at  this  avowal  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  of  their  readiness  to  recognize  the  independence  of  Buenos 
Ayres."  Message  and  Documents,  March  15,  1826.  House  Doc.  129,  p.  18. 

Dates  are  here  quite  important.  The  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, calling  for  information  on  the  subject,  was  passed  the  30th  of  January, 
1822.  Mr.  Clay's  brilliant  and  commanding  speeches  in  favor  of  recognition, 
which  so  electrified  the  civilized  world,  were  delivered  in  February.  Although 
the  House  at  first  declined,  February  5,  to  include  an  allowance  in  the  General 
Appropriation  Bill,  33  to  77,  and  afterwards  failed  by  only  one  vote  to  lay  Mr. 
Clay's  resolution  on  the  table,  71  to  72,  yet  after  the  debate,  the  declaration  of 
interest  in  the  cause  of  South  American  independence  was  adopted,  134  to  12, 
and  the  pledge  to  support  the  President  in  his  measures,  passed  87  to  68.  The 
President's  Message  was  transmitted  to  Congress  on  the  8th  of  March,  in  which 
he  "  declared  his  own  persuasion  that  the  time  had  arrived  when,  in  strict  con 
formity  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  in  the  fulfillment  of  the  duties  of  equal  and 
impartial  justice  to  all  parties,  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Independence  declared 
by  the  Spanish  American  colonies  could  no  longer  be  withheld."  The  appropri- 
ation was  made  by  Congress,  May  4th,  and  on  the  17th  of  June,  Mr.  Torres  was 
received  by  the  President  as  Charge  d' Affairs  from  the  Republic  of  Columbia. 
Mr.  Adams  says  that  "  the  immediate  consequence  of  our  recognition  was  the 
admission  of  the  vessels  of  the  South  American  nations,  under  their  own  colors, 
into  the  ports  of  the  principal  maritime  nations  of  Europe."  Doc.  p.  21. 


22  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

and  was  strengthened  by  the  promised  support  of  Mr.  Canning. 
And  it  has  been  the  policy  of  some  American  politicians  and 
writers  on  public  affairs  to  take  the  same  ground,  for  the  purpose 
of  depreciating  the  value  of  Mr.  Monroe's  declaration.  We 
have  examined,  with  as  much  care  and  as  much  impartiality  as 
we  were  able,  all  the  evidence  within  our  reach,  and  we  have  no 
hesitation  in  giving  judgment  that  the  course  of  our  government 
was  in  no  sense  originated  by  the  forethought  or  the  sagacity  of 
British  statesmen,  or  emboldened  by  their  courage,  or  the  expec- 
tation of  their  countenance  and  support,  but  is  to  be  credited  in 
full  to  the  wisdom  and  sagacity  and  patriotic  courage  of  the 
American  administration.  And  any  attempt  in  any  quarter  to 
disparage  the  importance,  or  discredit  the  independence  of  this 
proceeding,  is  unjust  and  wrongful  in  Englishmen,  and  unpatri- 
otic and  mean  in  Americans.  Of  course  it  is  impossible  to 
present,  in  these  pages,  a  detailed  summary  of  the  evidence  on 
which  this  judgment  rests.  We  can  only  indicate  a  few  of  the 
leading  points  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Stapleton,  in  his  elaborate  memoir  of  the  public  life  of 
Mr.  Canning,  represents  that  statesman  as  having  a  desire  to 
recognize  the  Spanish  American  states,  with  a  view  to  counteract 
certain  apprehended  schemes  of  the  French  government,  who 
might  seek  to  acquire  some  of  those  territories  as  an  indemnity 
for  the  cost  of  the  invasion  which  restored  absolutism  in  Spain. 
"  It  was  with  this  view,"  he  says,  "  that  towards  the  latter  end  of 
August,  1823,"  he  "  sounded  Mr.  Rush,  as  to  whether  the  mo- 
ment were  not  arrived  when  the  two  governments"  "might  not 
come  to  some  understanding  with  each  other  on  the  subject,"  so 
as  to  unite  in  some  statement  of  principles,  &c.  Memoir,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  24.  And  this  account  of  the  affair  is  followed  and  sub- 
stantially copied  by  the  North  American  Review  for  1856,  Yol. 
82,  p.  48T. 

Now  we  have  Mr.  Rush's  own  account  of  this  interview,  from 
which  it  is  plain  that  it  was  Mr.  Rush  who  introduced  the  sub- 
ject, and  who  not  only  "  sounded  "  Mr.  Canning,  but  interrogated 
him,  and  persisted  in  seeking  the  desired  information  as  to  his 
views,  and  pressed  upon  him  the  direct  and  simple  and  America] i 
method  of  dealing  with  the  difficulty,  by  immediate  recognition, 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  23 

as  the  wisest  and  safest  policy.  And  it  is  impossible  to  read  Mr. 
Rush's  book  without  the  conviction  that  he  is  a  most  considerate 
writer,  conscientiously  careful  to  make  his  statements  in  the  most 
exact  accordance  with  truth,  and  singularly  free  from  a  desire  to 
magnify  hi  s  own  merits  or  glorify  his  own  abilities,  or  in  any  way 
to  exalt  his  own  reputation  at  the  expense  of  the  truth,  or  of  any 
other  person.  There  is  no  modern  writer  whose  statements  bear 
more  convincing  marks  of  calm  and  exact  verity. 

It  was  on  the  16th  of  August,  1823,  that  Mr.  Bush  had  his 
first  formal  diplomatic  conference  with  the  tnew  secretary.  It 
was  held  at  the  particular  request  of  Mr.  Bush,  for  the  especial 
purpose  of  opening  negotiations  on  five  or  six  subjects,  (all  un- 
connected with  Spanish  America),  which  had  been  particularly 
and  freshly  committed  to  him  by  his  government.  He  says  of 
the  conference,  "  The  proper  object  of  it  being  over,  I  transiently 
asked  him,"  Mr.  Canning,  "  some  question  concerning  the  aspect 
of  affairs  in  Spain,  as  the  defection  of  Ballasteros  from  the  con- 
stitutional cause  had  given  rise  to  much  apprehension  of  final 
disaster."  Beceiving  a  general  response  in  the  same  tenor,  Mr. 
Bush  remarked  that  there  would  be  one  consolation  left,  that 
Great  Britain  would  not  allow  the  Bowers  to  stop  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  colonies.  This  remark  he  based  upon  Mr.  Canning's 
letter  to  the  French  minister,  dated  March  31,  1823,  which  sim- 
ply expressed  the  belief  of  England  that  no  attempt  would  be 
made  by  France  to  bring  any  of  the  Spanish  colonies  under  her 
dominion,  either  by  conquest  or  cession.  Mr.  Canning,  without 
a  positive  assent,  asked  what  the  American  government  would 
say  to  a  joint  movement  with  England  for  this  object.  Mr.  Bush 
replied  that  he  had  no  instructions  on  that  point,  but  would  make 
the  inquiry  informally  if  it  was  desired,  but  could  do  it  with 
more  advantage  if  he  knew  the  precise  position  of  England 
towards  those  countries,  especially  as  to  the  material  point  of 
acknowledging  their  independence.  Mr.  Canning  admitted  his 
own  belief  that  America  was  lost  to  Europe,  but  England  must 
for  the  present  leave  the  question  open  for  Spain  to  do  what  she 
could  towards  making  terms  with  the  colonies.  Mr.  Bush, 
"  wishing  to  be  still  more  especially  enlightened,"  pressed  the 
inquiry  whether  England  was  "  contemplating  any  steps  which 


24  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

had  reference  to  the  recognition."  Mr.  Canning  answered  that 
it  was  proposed  to  send  out  a  commission  of  inquiry  to  Mexico, 
such  as  the  United  States  sent  in  1817  to  Buenos  Ayres.  And 
then  he  suggested  the  specific  proposal  that  the  two  countries 
should,  in  some  unobjectionable  way,  cause  it  to  be  known  that 
they  were  agreed  in  the  opinion  that  France  ought  not  to  extend 
her  efforts  at  subjugation  to  the  colonies.  Mr.  Rush  expressed 
no  opinion  either  for  or  against  this  suggestion,  but  promised  to 
communicate  it  to  his  government.  See  Memoranda,  Yol.  II., 
pp.  39T-404. 

Such,  we  have  no  doubt,  is  a  true  history  of  the  "  sounding  " 
process,  as  it  took  place  on  the  16th  of  August.  On  the  22d,  Mr. 
Canning,  in  turn,  "  sounded  Mr.  Rush,"  by  an  "  unofficial  and 
confidential "  note,  renewing  the  suggestion  which  the  latter  had 
finally  drawn  from  him,  of  a  joint  declaration  against  further  at- 
tempts to  subjugate  the  colonies,  and  inquiring  whether  he  con- 
sidered himself  authorized  to  sign  a  convention,  or  to  exchange 
ministerial  notes  to  that  effect.  Mr.  Rush  replied,  next  day,  that 
what  his  government  most  earnestly  desired  was  to  see  those  states 
"  received  into  the  family  of  nations  by  the  Powers  of  Europe, 
and  especially  by  Great  Britain ;"  that  the  sentiments  in  the  note 
were  shared  by  the  United  States,  who  considered  the  recovery 
of  the  colonies  of  Spain  to  be  entirely  hopeless,  and  would  "  re- 
gard as  highly  unjust,  and  as  fruitful  of  disastrous  consequences, 
any  attempt  on  the  part  of  any  European  power,  to  take  posses- 
sion of  them  by  conquest,  by  cession,  or  on  any  other  ground  or 
pretext  whatever,"  but  that  his  instructions  were  silent  as  to  any 
manner  in  which  these  principles  should  be  avowed.  We  cannot 
go  over  the  whole  of  this  negotiation,  Mr.  Rush's  account  of 
which  extends  to  above  forty  pages ;  but  the  intelligent  reader 
will  see  in  the  sentence  last  quoted,  the  spirit,  and  almost  the 
very  language  of  President  Monroe's  declaration,  issued  three 
months  afterwards.  "Whoever  examines  it  attentively  will  see 
that  Mr.  Rush  adhered,  throughout  the  correspondence  and  con- 
ferences, to  the  one  indispensable  point,  of  recognition,  as  the 
preliminary,  declining  to  take  any  step  or  agree  to  any  measure 
until  that  was  accorded ;  while  he  at  the  same  time  maintained  a 
scrupulous  regard  for  our  friendly  relations  with  both  France  and 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  25 

Spain.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Canning  continually  avoided  the 
promise  of  recognition  at  once,  evidently  with  a  view  to  secure 
advantages  which  he  hoped  to  gain  for  England  by  the  delay. 
The  farthest  he  could  go  was  to  say  that  England  would  acknowl- 
edge the  independence  of  the  colonies  at  once,  "in  case  France 
should  employ  force  "  to  subjugate  them,  or  if  Spain  "  should 
attempt  to  put  a  stop  to  the  trade  of  Britain  "  with  them.  And 
he  finally  closed  the  conference  on  the  26th  of  November,  by  in- 
forming Mr.  Rush  that  he  had  judged  it  best  for  England  to  act 
alone,  and  had  accordingly  already  entered  into  communication 
with  France  on  the  subject.  He  therefore  wished  the  whole 
affair,  as  far  as  concerned  a  united  movement  with  this  country, 
to  remain  as  it  had  been,  informal  and  unofficial — "  not  as  a  pro- 
position already  made,  but  as  evidence  of  the  nature  of  one  which 
it  would  have  been  his  desire  to  make,"  had  Mr.  Rush  been  em- 
powered to  respond  to  it. 

On  the  2d  of  December,  1823,  President  Monroe  communi- 
cated his  annual  Message  to  Congress,  in  which  he  laid  down, 
broadly  and  clearly,  the  doctrine  held  by  this  government  con- 
cerning the  new  relation  subsisting  between  this  continent  and 
the  nations  of  Europe.  After  alluding  with  deep  interest  to  the 
struggles  for  liberty  in  Greece,  and  to  the  disappointment  of  our 
expectations  in  regard  to  Spain  and  Portugal,  he  proceeds  to 
observe — 

"  Of  events  in  that  quarter  of  the  globe  with  which  we  have  so  much  inter- 
course, and  from  which  we  derive  our  origin,  we  have  always  been  anxious  and 
interested  spectators.  The  citizens  of  the  United  States  cherish  sentiments  the 
most  friendly  in  favor  of  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  their  fellow-men  on  that 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  In  the  wars  of  the  European  Powers,  in  matters  relating 
to  themselves,  we  have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport  with  our  policy 
so  to  do.  It  is  only  when  our  rights  are  invaded,  or  seriously  menaced,  that  we 
resent  injuries,  or  make  preparations  for  our  defense.  With  the  movements  in 
this  hemisphere,  *ve  are  of  necessity  more  immediately  connected,  and  by  causes 
which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened  and  impartial  observers.  The  political 
system  of  the  Allied  Powers  is  essentially  different  in  this  respect  from  that  of 
America.  This  difference  proceeds  from  that  which  exists  in  their  respective 
governments.  And  to  the  defense  of  our  own,  which  has  been  achieved  with  so 
much  expense  of  blood  and  treasure,  and  matured  by  the  wisdom  of  their  most 
enlightened  citizens,  and  under  which  we  have  enjoyed  most  unexampled  felicity, 
this  whole  nation  is  devoted.  We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor,  and  to  the  amica- 
ble relations  subsisting  between  the  United  States  and  these  Powers,  to  declare 

4 


26  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any 
portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  ex- 
isting colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European  Power  we  have  not  interfered, 
and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  governments  who  have  declared  their  in- 
dependence, and  maintained  it,  and  whose  independence  we  have,  on  great  con- 
sideration, and  on  just  principles,  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any 
interposition,  for  the  purposes  of  oppressing  them,  or  controlling  in  any  other 
manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European  Power,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the  United  States.  In  the  war 
between  these  Governments  and  Spain,  we  delared  our  neutrality  at  the  time  of 
their  recognition,  and  to  this  we  have  adhered,  and  shall  continue  to  adhere, 
provided  no  change  shall  occur,  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  competent  au- 
thorities of  this  government,  shall  make  a  corresponding  change  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  indispensable  to  their  security." 

He  also  informs  Congress  that  in  the  pending  negotiations 
with  Russia,  which  he  had  entered  upon,  through  a  desire,  "  by 
this  friendly  proceeding,  of  manifesting  the  great  value  which  we 
have  invariably  attached  to  the  friendship  of  the  Emperor,  and 
our  solicitude  to  cultivate  the  best  understanding  with  his  gov- 
ernment," he  had  judged  the  occasion  a  proper  one  "  for  asserting, 
as  a  principle  in  which  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United 
States  are  involved,  that  the  American  continents,  by  the  free 
and  independent  condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  main- 
tain, are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  subjects  for  future  col- 
onization by  any  European  power." 

These  paragraphs,  taken  together,  present  three  distinct  arti- 
cles of  faith  or  principles  of  action,  growing  out  of  the  newly 
won  independence  of  the  Spanish  American  countries. 

1.  That  the  American  continents,  (leaving  out  the  islands), 
are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  subject  to  any  future  coloni- 
zation by  any  European  nation. 

2.  That  we  shall  consider  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
European  powers  to  extend  their  political  system  to  any  portion 
of  this  hemisphere  as  "  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety,"  and 
of  course  to  be  counteracted  or  provided  against  as  we  shall  deem 
advisable  in  any  case. 

3.  That  for  any  European  power  to  interfere  with  any  Amer- 
ican government  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  or  dictating  to 
them  unjustly,  or  of  controlling  their  destiny  by  force  or  threats, 
would  be  viewed  by  us  as  "  the  manifestation  of  an   unfriendly 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  27 

disposition  towards  the  United  States,"  which  we  should  be  called 
upon  to  notice  by  protest  or  remonstrance,  or  in  such  way  as  we 
should  think  our  honor  and  interest  required. 

This  declaration,  so  plain,  so  explicit,  and  so  firm,  electrified 
Europe,  which  had  begun  to  learn,  by  the  results  of  the  war  of 
1812,  that  the  United  States  were  to  be  respected  for  their 
strength,  even,  where  they  were  hated  for  their  free  institutions. 
Indeed,  it  may  be  said  to  have  astonished  both  continents,  by  the 
boldness  of  front  which  it  assumed.  Mr.  Rush  tells  us  that 
"  when  the  message  arrived  in  London,  the  whole  document  ex- 
cited great  attention.  It  was  upon  all  tongues,  the  press  was 
full  of  it,  the  Spanish  American  deputies  were  overjoyed,  Spanish 
American  securities  rose  in  the  market,  and  the  safety  of  the  new 
states  from  European  coercion  was  considered  as  no  longer  doubt- 
ful." Yol.  II.,  p.  458.  Mr.  Stapleton,  the  biographer  of  Can- 
ning, says  that  "  coupled  with  the  refusal  of  Great  Britain  to  take 
part  in  a  Congress,  similar  to  those  which  had  met  at  Vienna, 
Aix  la  Chapelle,  Laybach,  and  Yerona,  it  effectually  put  an  end 
to  the  project  of  assembling  one,  since,  with  the  intentions  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  thus  unequivocally  declared, 
such  an  assembly  would  have  been  utterly  unable  to  have  given 
effect  to  its  own  resolutions."  Yol.  II,  p.  40. 

In  the  debate  on  the  reply  to  the  King's  speech  at  the  open- 
ing of  Parliament,  February  6th,  1823,  Mr.  Brougham  said, 
"  The  question  with  regard  to  South  America  was  now,  he  be- 
lieved, disposed  of,  or  nearly  so ;  for  one  event  had  recently  hap- 
pened, than  which  no  event  had  ever  dispersed  greater  joy, 
exultation,  and  gratitude,  over  all  the  freemen  of  Europe ;  that 
event  which  was  decisive  on  the  subject,  was  the  language  had 
with  respect  to  Spanish  America  in  the  speech  or  message  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  the  Congress."  He  proceeded 
to  state,  as  an  indisputable  fact,  that  "  Ferdinand  had  been  prom- 
ised by  the  Emperor  Alexander,  that  if  the  King  of  Spain  would 
throw  off  the  constitutional  fetters  by  which  he  was  trammeled, 
he  would  assist  him  in  recovering  his  transatlantic  dominions." 
"  In  that  case,  however,  assistance  would  not  have  been  given 
openly,  but  in  a  covert,  underhand  way."  And  he  concluded 
this  part  of  the  subject  by  expressing  his  belief  that  "  if  the 


28  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

declaration  of  the  United  States  did  not  put  an  end  to  such  at- 
tempts on  the  independence  of  the  colonies ;  if  a  vigorous  resis- 
tance were  not  opposed  to  such  machinations,  sooner  or  later,  the 
liberties  of  those  colonies  would  fall  a  sacrifice  to  the  intrigues 
of  Spain  and  the  Allied  Powers."  Stapleton,  pp.  46-47. 

Sir  James  Mackintosh,  June  15th,  1824,  on  the  Eecognition 
of  the  Spanish  American  States,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  bears 
this  testimony  to  its  importance : 

"  Although  the  attention  of  the  House  is  chiefly  directed  to  the  acts  of  our 
own  government,  it  is  not  foreign  to  the  purpose  of  my  argument  to  solicit  them, 
for  a  few  moments,  to  consider  the  admirable  message  sent  on  the  2d  of  Decem- 
ber, 1823,  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  Congress  of  the  great 
Republic.  I  heartily  rejoice  in  the  perfect  agreement  of  that  message  with  the 
principles  professed  by  us  to  the  French  minister,  and  afterwards  to  all  the  great 
Powers  of  Europe,  whether  military  or  maritime,  and  to  the  great  English  State 
beyond  the  Atlantic.  I  am  not  anxious  to  ascertain  whether  the  message  was 
influenced  by  our  communication,  or  was  merely  the  result  of  similarity  of  prin- 
ciple, and  coincidence  of  interest.  The  United  States  had,  at  all  events,  long 
preceded  us  in  the  recognition.  They  sent  consuls  and  commissioners  two  years 
before  us,  who  found  the  greater  part  of  South  America  quiet  and  secure,  and  in 
the  agitations  of  the  remainder  met  with  no  obstacles  to  friendly  intercourse. 
This  recognition  neither  interrupted  amicable  relations  with  Spain,  nor  occasion- 
ed remonstrance  from  any  Power  in  Europe.  They  solemnly  renew  that  declara- 
tion in  the  message  before  me.  That  wise  government,  in  grave  but  determined 
language,  and  with  that  reasonable  and  deliberate  tone,  which  becomes  true 
courage,  proclaims  the  principles  of  her  policy,  and  makes  known  the  cases  in 
which  the  care  of  her  own  safety  will  compel  her  to  take  up  arms  for  the  defense 
of  other  states.  I  have  already  observed  the  coincidence  with  the  declarations 
of  England ;  which,  indeed,  is  perfect,  if  allowance  be  made  for  the  deeper,  or, 
at  least,  more  immediate  interest  in  the  independence  of  South  America,  which 
near  neighborhood  gives  to  the  United  States.  This  coincidence  of  the  two  great 
English  commonwealths,  (for  so  I  delight  to  call  them,  and  I  heartily  pray  that 
they  may  be  forever  united  in  the  cause  of  justice  and  liberty),  cannot  be  con- 
templated without  the  utmost  pleasure  by  every  enlightened  citizen  of  either. 
Above  all,  Sir,  there  is  one  coincidence  between  them,  which  is,  I  trust,  of  happy 
augury  to  the  whole  civilized  world : — they  have  both  declared  their  neutrality 
in  the  American  contest,  as  long  as  it  shall  be  confined  to  Spain  and  her  former 
colonies,  or  as  long  as  no  foreign  power  shall  interfere." 

Mr.  Webster,  in  his  great  speech  in  Congress,  on  the  Panama 
Mission,  April  llth,  1826,  expressed  his  entire  concurrence  in 
the  sentiment  expressed  by  other  gentlemen,  that  "  this  Declara- 
tion of  Mr.  Monroe  was  wise,  reasonable,  and  patriotic."  And 
he  had  understood  that  "  it  was  considered,  weighed,  and  dis- 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  29 

tinctly  approved  by  every  one  of  the  President's  advisers  at  that 
time."  He  adds,  that  "it  met  with  the  entire  concurrence  and 
the  hearty  approbation  of  the  country.  The  tone  which  it  utter- 
ed found  a  corresponding  response  in  the  heart  of  the  free  people 
of  the  United  States."  And  he  thus  eloquently  describes  its 
general  reception  and  effect : 

"The  people  saw,  and  they  rejoiced  to  see,  that  on  a  fit  occasion,  our  weight 
had  been  thrown  into  the  right  scale,  and  that,  without  departing  from  our  duty, 
we  had  done  something  useful,  something  effectual,  for  the  cause  of  civil  liberty. 
One  general  glow  of  exultation,  one  universal  feeling  of  the  gratified  love  of  lib- 
erty, one  conscious  and  proud  perception  of  the  consideration  which  the  country 
possessed,  and  of  the  respect  and  honor  which  belonged  to  it,  pervaded  all 
bosoms.  Possibly,  the  public  enthusiasm  went  too  far ;  it  certainly  did  go  far. 
But,  Sir,  the  sentiment  which  this  declaration  inspired  was  not  confined  to  our- 
selves. Its  force  was  felt  everywhere,  by  all  those  who  could  understand  its  ob- 
ject and  foresee  its  effect.  In  that  very  House  of  Commons,  of  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  South  Carolina  has  spoken  with  such  commendation,  how  was  it 
received  ?  Not  only,  Sir,  with  approbation,  but,  I  may  say,  with  no  little  enthu- 
siasm. While  the  leading  minister  [Mr.  Canning]  expressed  his  entire  concur- 
rence in  the  sentiments  and  opinions  of  the  American  President,  his  distinguish- 
ed competitor  [Mr.  Brougham]  in  that  popular  body,  less  restrained  by  official 
decorum,  and  more  at  liberty  to  give  utterance  to  all  the  feelings  of  the  occasion, 
declared  that  no  occasion  had  ever  created  greater  joy*  exultation,  and  gratitude 
among  all  the  free  men  in  Europe  ;  that  he  felt  pride  in  being  connected  by 
blood  and  language  with  the  people  of  the  United  States  ;  that  the  feeling  dis- 
closed by  the  message  became  a  great,  a  free,  and  an  independent  nation ;  and 
that  he  hoped  his  own  country  would' be  prevented  by  no  mean  pride,  or  paltry 
jealousy,  from  following  so  noble  and  glorious  an  example." 

Such  a  declaration,  so  uttered,  and  received  with  such  distin- 
guished consideration,  and  followed  by  so  momentous  results, 
ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  of  trifling  significance  or  of  transient 
authority.  By  it  the  United  States  took  the  position  which  of 
right  belonged  to  them,  as  the  first  of  American  republics,  the 
proper  representative  of  American  principles,  the  faithful  defen- 
der of  American  interests.  It  was  as  Mr.  Edward  Livingston 
termed  it,  "a  pledge  to  the  world,"  and  involved  national  obliga- 
tions and  i-esponsibilities  which  will  never  die  out,  so  long  as  we 
remain  a  ^ree  republic*  For  the  obligations  assumed  by  nations 
do  not  did  with  those  who  incurred  them,  or  cease  to  bind  because 
not  duly  valued  by  a  succeeding  generation.  It  became  and  is 
to  us,  in  our  relations  with  both  Europe  and  America,  the  point 
of  honor,  in  losing  which,  we  become  a  base  nation,  for  honor  is 


30  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

the  chastity  of  nations,  as  patriotism  is  the  faith  of  their  citizens. 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  so  many  of  our  own  politicians,  from 
one  motive  and  another,  have  either  greviously  misapprehended 
the  import  of  the  declaration,  or  have  been  insensible  of  its  im- 
portance as  well  as  of  its  permanent  force.  The  learned  and 
judicious  compilers  of  Appleton's  Cyclopedia  have  correctly  pro- 
nounced it  "  a  platform  of  principle  on  this  important  subject, 
which  has  been  approved  by  the  prominent  statesmen  of  the 
country,  from  the  time  of  its  proclamation  to  the  present." 

It  was  perhaps  unfortunate  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  shortly 
after  its  promulgation,  but  under  a  change  of  political  party 
tactics,  became  mixed  up  with  the  discussions  concerning  the 
Congress  of  Panama.  Narrow-minded  partisans,  on  the  one  side 
and  the  other,  thought  it  necessary  to  attack  or  defend  the  ad- 
ministration by  expanding  or  narrowing  the  scope  of  this  doc- 
trine, until  it  finally  seemed  to  many  that  the  Panama  Congress 
was  the  culmination  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  perished 
when  that  failed.  Whereas  the  Panama  Congress  was,  at  the 
most,  but  a  measure  designed  to  apply  and  carry  out  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  if  found  advisable  in  a  certain  connection. 

Mr.  Benton,  in  his  "  Abridgment  of  the  Debates,"  makes  a 
note  to  this  part  of  President  Monroe's  Message,  quoting  a  passage 
from  President  Adams's  Panama  Message,  where  he  states  it  as 
one  of  the  objects  of  consultation  at  the  proposed  Congress, 
whether  it  was  advisable  to  form  "  an  agreement  between  all  the 
parties  represented  at  this  meeting,  that  each  will  guard,  by  its 
own  means,  against  the  establishment  of  any  future  European 
colony  within  its  borders;"  and  says  this  is  "an  authoritative  ex- 
position of  the  scope  and  extent  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine." 
Whereas,  the  exclusion  of  European  colonization  was  but  one  of 
three  distinct  points  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  the  measure 
suggested  by  Mr.  Adams,  so  far  from  defining  the  "  extent  and 
scope,"  was  merely  an  application  of  the  doctrine  to  a  transient 
occasion.  The  Administration  saw  indications  of  a  tendency 
among  the  new  republics  to  fling  themselves  upon  the  protection 
of  our  government,  without  proposing  to  make  use  of  their  own 
resources  for  their  own  defense.  And  they  were  anxious  to  have 
the  conference  so  managed  as  to  lead  these  infant  nations  to  a 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  31 

manly  assumption  of  the  dignity  of  independence,  teaching  them 
to  feel  its  responsibilities,  by  practising  its  duties  of  self-assertion 
and  self  protection,  as  well  as  to  enjoy  its  benefits.  And  to  effect 
this  result,  they  projected, the  agreement  referred  to.  But  that 
was  not  itself  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  nor  did  it  determine  either 
the  "scope  and  extent"  of  the  doctrine,  or  the  course  to  which 
it  might  lead  our  government  at  other  times  or  under  other  cir- 
cumstances. 

Mr.  Benton  further  describes  the  occasion  of  the  declaration ; 
that  the  "  Holy  Alliance  for  the  maintenance  of  the  order  of 
things  which  they  had  established  in  Europe,  took  it  under  ad- 
visement to  extend  their  care  to  the  young  American  republics 
of  Spanish  origin,  and  to  convert  them  into  monarchies,  to  be 
governed  by  sovereigns  of  European  stocks — such  as  the  Holy 
Allies  might  put  upon  them.  It  was  against  the  extension  of 
this  European  system  to  the  two  Americas  that  Mr.  Monroe  pro- 
tested." And  the  North  American  Review  for  1856,  in  an  arti- 
cle displaying  no  inconsiderable  acquaintance  with  historical  facts 
pertaining  to  the  question,  says  of  the  declaration : 

"Originated  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  a  particular  conjuncture  of  events,  it 
finds  in  them  alone  its  real  purport  and  justification.  Wise  and  seasonable  with 
reference  to  the  circumstances  of  the  time  at  which  it  was  promulgated,  it  ceased 
to  be  of  any  force  even  as  a  Presidential  recommendation,  as  soon  as  the  crisis 
which  called  it  forth  had  passed."  Vol.  82,  p.  489. 

It  is  true  that  the  occasion  of  the  Monroe  Declaration  was  as 
is  described.  But  the  cause  was  the  antagonism  of  the  two  po- 
litical systems  of  Europe  and  America,  and  the  object  was  not 
merely  to  prevent  the  present  danger  of  invasion,  but  to  warn 
off  the  incompatible  system  from  ever  attempting  to  force  itself 
upon  this  continent.  The  danger  was  transient,  but  the  cause 
of  the  danger  was  permanent,  and  the  principle  enunciated  was 
of  general  application,  as  long  as  the  cause  remains,  in  the  exis- 
tence of  an  incompatible  system,  which  its  supporters  desired  to 
make  universal.  The  utterances  of  great  principles  which  are 
most  effective,  are  commonly  made  upon  occasions.  So  it  is  with 
the  scriptures  of  truth,  The  law  of  nations  has  been  wrought 
out  and  formed  into  a  tolerably  logical  system  of  general  princi- 
ples, solely  through  the  methods  by  which  governments  have 


32  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

met  occasions.  And  to  argue  that  great  principles  put  forth,  like 
those  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  to  meet  an  occasion,  therefore 
"cease  to  be  of  any  force"  "as  soon  as  the  crisis  which  called  it 
forth  had  passed,"  is  to  bury  out  of  sight  all  the  lessons  of  history 
and  all  the  wisdom  derived  from  human  experience.  The  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  was  not  so  understood  by  those  who  advanced  it. 
The  meditated  intervention  or  invasion,  and  even  the  interna- 
tional conference  which  was  to  arrange  for  it,  were  stifled  in  their 
inception  by  this  bold  declaration  of  the  determination  of  a  great 
people.  The  danger  which  called  forth  the  utterance  passed 
away  at  the  instant  that  word  was  proclaimed.  But  the  admin- 
istration, which  sent  forth  so  potent  a  declaration,  intended  that 
it  should  serve  for  the  future  as  well  as  the  present.  This  is 
proved  by  the  earnestness  with  which  Mr.  Monroe  reiterated  the 
Doctrine,  with  its  reasons,  after  the  existing  danger  had  passed 
away.  Speaking  of  the  Spanish  American  States,  whose  inde- 
pendence was  not  yet  acknowledged  by  Europe,  the  Message  to 
Congress  of  December  7th,  1824,  says : 

"  The  deep  interest  which  we  take  in  their  independence,  which  we  have 
acknowledged,  and  in  their  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights  incident  thereto,  especial- 
ly in  the  very  important  one  of  instituting  their  own  governments,  has  been  de- 
clared, and  is  known  to  the  world.  Separated  as  we  are  from  Europe  by  the 
great  Atlantic  Ocean,  we  can  have  no  concern  in  the  wars  of  the  European  Gov- 
ernments, nor  in  the  causes  which  produce  them.  The  Balance  of  Power  between 
them,  into  whichever  scale  it  may  turn  in  its  various  vibrations,  cannot  affect  us. 
It  is  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  preserve  the  most  friendly  relations  with 
every  power,  and  on  conditions  fair,  equal,  and  applicable  to  all.  But  in  regard 
to  our  neighbors  our  situation  is  different.  It  is  impossible  for  the  European 
Governments  to  interfere  in  their  concerns,  especially  in  those  alluded  to," — [of 
instituting  their  own  governments} — "  which  are  vital,  without  affecting  us ;  in- 
deed, the  motive  which  might  induce  such  interference  in  the  present  state  of  the 
war  between  the  parties,  if  war  it  may  be  called,  would  appear  to  be  equally 
applicable  to  us.  It  is  gratifying  to  know  that  some  of  the  Powers  with  whom 
we  enjoy  a  very  friendly  intercourse,  and  to  whom  these  views  have  been  com- 
municated, have  appeared  to  acquiesce  in  them." 

This  settles  the  question  as  to  the  scope  and  extent  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  and  the  permanent  force  which  it  wras  intended 
to  possess.  Mr.  Monroe  here  used  the  technical  phrase,  "  Bal- 
ance of  Power,"  to  designate  the  "  political  system  "  which  he 
would  spurn.  It  was  not  merely  the  defeat  of  the  threatened 
invasion  that  lie  aimed  at,  nor  even  a  counterblast  to  the  Holy 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  33 

Alliance  that  he  wished  to  put  forth.  But  he  would  separate  us 
forever  from  the  complications  of  the  Balance  of  Power  in  Eu- 
rope, and  vindicate  forever  the  right  of  American  nations  to  con- 
struct their  own  governments  according  to  their  own  views  of 
their  own  welfare,  without  the  liability  of  interference  by  other 
governments  intent  upon  serving  their  own  interest.  The  great 
deliberation  and  forethought  with  which  our  government  formed 
its  conclusions,  as  well  as  the  independence  of  European  sugges- 
tion or  influence  with  which  it  acted,  is  shown  by  the  correspon- 
dence which  the  President  held  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  at  a  date 
before  it  was  possible  for  him  to  have  learned  anything  definite 
concerning  Mr.  Canning's  intentions  as  to  recognition.  An  ex- 
tract of  a  letter  from  the  Sage  of  Moriticello  to  Mr.  Monroe, 
dated  the  24th  of  October,  1823,  shows  also  the  views  entertain- 
ed by  both  of  these  learned  and  experienced  statesmen,  as  to  the 
breadth  of  scope  and  permanence  of  application  of  the  principles 
under  consideration : 

"  The  question  presented  by  the  letters  you  have  sent  me  is  the  most  momen- 
tous which  has  ever  been  offered  to  my  contemplation,  since  that  of  indepen- 
dence. That  made  us  a  nation ;  this  sets  our  compass,  and  points  the  course  which 
we  are  to  steer  through  the  ocean  of  time.  And  never  could  we  embark  on  it 
under  circumstances  more  auspicious.  Our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should 
be,  never  to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe.  Our  second,  never  to 
suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cis-Atlantic  affairs.  America  has  a  set  of  in- 
terests, (North  and  South,)  distinct  from  those  of  Europe,  and  peculiarly  her 
own.  She  should,  therefore,  have  a  system  of  her  own,  separate  and  apart  from 
that  of  Europe  ;  the  last  is  laboring  to  become  the  domicil  of  despotism ;  our 
endeavors  should  surely  be  to  make  our  hemisphere  that  of  freedom." 

The  National  Intelligencer,  a  paper  in  which  we  used  to  look 
only  for  the  elevated  utterances  of  an  enlightened  patriotism,  had 
an  editorial  Article  in  its  issue  of  March  llth,  1863,  designed  to 
show  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  nothing  more  than  "  &  caveat 
addressed  to  the  Holy  Alliance,  and  so  of  merely  temporary  im- 
port." And  it  concludes  that, 

"  The  contingency  which  it  was  instituted  to  meet  never  occurred,  and  hence 
there  was  no  necessity  for  its  enforcement.  We  have  no  disposition  to  call  it  a 
brutumfulmen,  or  to  disparage  the  patriotic  impulse  to  which  it  owed  its  origin ; 
but  it  no  longer  exists  save  as  a  Presidential  precedent  which  Congress  declined 
to  endorse.  The  creature  of  circumstances,  it  perished  so  soon  as  the  circum- 
stances disappeared  which  gave  it  life  and  activity.  In  a  similar  juncture,  it 
would  remain  for  the  wisdom  of  the  country  to  decide,  upon  a  similar  course,  if 
that  should  be  considered  the  most  expedient  and  proper," 

5 


34  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

This  Article  has  been  supposed  to  have  a  common  origin  with 
the  more  elaborate  disquisition  in  the  North  American  Review 
for  April.  1856,  the  views  and  arguments  being  much  alike,  and 
coming  to  a  similar  conclusion,  which  is  thus  expressed  in  the 

Review : 

"  While,  therefore,  the  Monroe  Doctrine  with  regard  to  forcible  intervention 
was  still  a  living  question,  it  failed  to  meet  the  sanction  of  Congress,  in  whose 
judgment  it  seemed  at  least  prudent  to  delay  the  adoption  of  any  measures  cor 
roborative  .of  the  President's  suggestions,  until  such  intervention  had  actually 
taken  place.  The  declaration  of  the  President  did  not  commit  the  policy  of  the 
country  to  any  specific  action  in  the  premises.  It  rested  with  Congress  to  "give 
it  life  and  activity,  and  this  Congress  declined  to  do.  Upon  the  wisdom  of  this 
decision  we  do  not  undertake  to  pronounce ;  we  merely  state  the  facts,  for  the 
purpose  of  drawing  the  conclusion  that  this  branch  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is 
not  a  living  and  substantive  principle  of  our  governmental  policy.  In  case,  how- 
ever, of  any  emergency  similar  to  that  which  prompted  the  declaration  of  Mr. 
Monroe,  it  would  be  competent  for  Congress  to  resuscitate  and  enforce  the  prin- 
ciple he  announced,  not  because  it  was  th.e  doctrine  of  Mr.  Monroe,  but  because 
it  might  be  deemed  wise  and  expedient  at  the  time.  Let  the  dead  past  bury  its 
dead.  To  act  in  the  living  present  is  as  sound  a  maxim  in  public  affairs  as  in 
private  life."  Vol.  82,  page  493. 

It  is  a  mistake,  into  which  we  are  surprised  that  so  able  a 
statesman  as  General  Cass  has  also  fallen,  to  suppose  that  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  lacks  any  element  of  force  or  authority  in  con- 
sequence of  not  having  been  formally  confirmed  or  enacted  by 
Congress.  It  is  a  matter  that  pertains  exclusively  to  the  Presi- 
dent, and  his  declaration  gives  it  complete  validity.  By  the  dis- 
tribution of  powers  in  our  frame  of  government,  questions  of 
international  relation  and  diplomacy,  except  the  declaration  of 
war,  are  committed  to  the  executive  department.  A  resolution 
of  approval,  or  even  an  act  of  Congress,  may  sometimes  be  of 
value,  in  any  emergency,  to  show  that  the  representatives  of  the 
people  by  states  and  districts  are  in  full  accord  with  the  Presi- 
dent, who  acts  for  the  whole  nation  as  a  unit.  But  the  nation  is 
as  fully  committed,  and  foreign  powers  are  at  liberty  and  bound 
to  recognize  our  national  determination  on  such  a  point,  in  a  de- 
claration of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  though  the 
matter  had  been  solemnly  enacted  by  both  Houses  of  Congress, 
and  even  ratified  by  the  people  in  town  meeting  all  over  the 
country. 

But  it  is  equally  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Holy  Alliance, 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  35 

the  Balance  of  Power,  or  the  Political  System  of  Europe,  are  no 
longer  of  concern  to  us,  or  that  the  danger  is  passed  of  a  Euro- 
pean invasion  for  the  purpose  of  dictating  to  American  nations 
the  form  of  government  under  which  they  may  live.  If  the 
Holy  Alliance  were  indeed  utterly  abrogated  and  forgotten,  it 
would  not  therefore  follow  that  there  is  no  longer  reason  to  fear 
the  introduction  of  the  European  system  of  politics  in  this  hem- 
isphere. The  Balance  of  Power  is  still  the  central  idea  of  Eu- 
ropean statesmanship.  The  doctrine  still  prevails,  that  rights  are 
not  inherent  in  the  people,  but  granted  to  them  by  the  crown  or 
the  conqueror;  and  that  it  cannot  be  a  valid  or  "stable"  govern- 
ment which  has  been  created  solely  by  the  will  of  the  people, 
and  holds  its  authority  from  no  higher  source  than  "  the  consent 
of  the  governed.1'  Unhappy  Greece,  which  succumbed  to  the 
European  system,  is  at  this  day  as  destitute  of  the  blessings  of 
good  government  as  the  most  unfortunate  of  the  Americau  re- 
publics which -rejected  that  system.  And  every  nation  in  Europe 
stands  liable  to  interference  from  its  neighbors,  for  ends  and  with 
purposes  lying  outside  of  the  mutual  relations  between  it  and 
the  interfering  powers.  Nor  were  the  statesmen  of  Europe  ever 
more  eager  than  they  are  to-day,  to  make  their  system  of  policy 
as  dominant  in  the  New  World  as  it  is  in  the  Old.  Those  per- 
sons are  doubtless  greatly  mistaken  who  imagine  that  the  Great 
Rebellion  was  inaugurated  without  help  or  counsel  from  Europe ; 
or  that  the  confident  reliance  upon  European  help  sprung  only 
from  the  heated  imaginations  of  the  arch  traitors ;  or  that  the 
instant  recognition  of  belligerent  rights  in  the  rebels  was  a  sud- 
den after-thought,  suggested  at  the  moment ;  or  that  the  com- 
mand of  vast  resources  in  Europe,  by  the  rebels,  was  merely  a 
matter  of  private  arrangement  with  Messrs.  Spence  and  Laird, 
and  their  associates.  Great  effects  require  adequate  causes.  It 
is  hardly  supposable  that  the  ready  coalition  and  instant  action 
of  the  three  powers,  England,  France,  and  Spain,  which  united 
in  the  invasion  of  Mexico  for  the  purpose  of  imposing  a  govern- 
ment upon  that  free  people,  were  the  effect  merely  of  a  sudden 
resolve  to  improve  an  unlooked-for  opportunity.  We  must  rather 
believe  that  there  was,  somewhere,  a  pre-existing  concert  of  de- 
sign, to  help  the  rebellion  into  full  being,  and  thus  make  an  op- 


36  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

portunity,  while  our  government  was  embarrassed,  to  overthrow 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  get  at  once  a  iirm  footing  on  this 
continent  for  the  political  system  of  Europe.  It  will  require  a 
succinct  but  careful  examination  of  this  Mexican  affair,  to  show 
precisely  the  present  position  of  our  government  in  regard  to  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  in  its  practical  applications  under  the  existing 
aspect  of  affairs  in  Europe. 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  attack  on  Fort  Sumter,  as  if 
by  one  and  the  same  impulse,  Spain  obtained  possession  of  the 
eastern  provinces  of  St.  Domingo,  through  the  treachery  of  the 
President  Santana,  and  made  that  fine  island  again  a  colony,  our 
own  government  quietly  acquiescing  in  this  first  grand  outrage 
against  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  On  the  29th  of  June,  1861,  Mr. 
Cor  win,  our  minister  to  Mexico,  called  the  attention  of  our  gov- 
ernment to  the  inklings  he  had  heard  of  a  project  of  intervention 
in  Mexican  affairs  by  France  and  England ;  and  he  asks  how  that 
will  affect  the  great  idea  of  free  government  on  this  continent, 
and  exclaims  :  "  Surely  American  statesmen  should  be  awake  to 
even  a  suspicion  that  such  portentious  events  are  possible."  He 
reasons :  "  The  towering  ambition  of  Napoleon  to  regulate  Eu- 
rope, when  it  shall  have  been  gratified  in  that  quarter,  will  seek 
to  dazzle  the  world  by  impressing  upon  this  continent  the  idea  of 
French  glory  and  French  supremacy."  That  wild  suggestion  is 
now  history.  Mr.  Seward  replied,  August  24th,  that  "  This 
government  cherishes  the  actual  independence  of  Mexico  as  a 
cardinal  object,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  foreign  intervention,  *  * 
yet  the  present  moment  does  not  seem  to  me  an  opportune  one 
for  personal  reassurance  of  the  policy  of  the  government  to  for- 
eign nations.  Prudence  requires  that,  in  order  to  surmount  the 
evils  of  faction  at  home,  we  should  not  unnecessarily  provoke 
debates  with  foreign  countries,  but  rather  repair,  as  speedily  as 
possible,  the  prestige  which  those  evils  have  impaired."  Wisdom 
would  have  dictated,  what  experience  has  sadly  confirmed,  that 
the  national  "prestige"  would  be  best  maintained  by  a  frank  and 
firm  communication  of  our  unalterable  adhesion  to  the  positions 
of  Mr.  Monroe.  Instead  of  which,  Mr.  Seward  wrote  on  the 
same  day  to  Mr.  Adams,  our  minister  to  England,  to  ascertain  if 
the  British  government  will  forbear  hostilities  against  Mexico,  on 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  37 

condition  that  we  should  aid  the  latter  in  the  payment  of  certain 
claims.  A  month  later,  Sept.  24th,  he  instructed  Mr.  Adams 
"  to  inform  the  government  of  Great  Britain  that  this  govern- 
ment looks  with  deep  concern  to  the  subject  of  the  armed  move- 
ment," then  publicly  talked  of,  and  to  ask  "  for  such  explanations 
of  it  as  her  Majesty  may  feel  at  liberty  to  give,"  but  grounding 
the  request,  not  on 'the  positions  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  but  on 
"  the  intimations  we  have  already  given  in  regard  to  an  assump- 
tion of  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  Mexican  debt."  In  a  like 
spirit  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Dayton,  March  3d,  1861 : 

"  We  have  acted  with  moderation  and  with  good  faith  towards  the  three  Pow- 
ers which  invited  our  co-operation  in  their  combined  expedition  to  that  disturbed 
and  unhappy  country.  We  have  relied  upon  their  disclaimers  of  all  political 
designs  against  the  Mexican  republic.  But  we  cannot  shut  out  from  our  sight 
the  indications  which,  unexplained,  arc  calculated  to  induce  a  belief  that  the 
government  of  France  has  lent  a  favoring  ear  to  Mexican  emissaries,  who  have 
proposed  to  subvert  the  republican  American  system  in  Mexico,  and  to  import 
into  that  country  a  throne  and  even  a  monarch  from  Europe. 

"  You  will  intimate  to  M.  Thouvenel  that  rumors  of  this  kind  have  reached 
the  President,  and  awakened  some  anxiety  on  his  part.  You  will  say  that  you 
are  not  authorized  to  ask  explanations,  but  you  are  sure  that  if  any  can  be 
made,  which  will  be  calculated  to  relieve  that  anxiety,  they  will  be  very  wel- 
come, inasmuch  as  the  United  States  desire  nothing  so.  much  as  to  maintain  a 
good  understanding  and  cordial  relations  with  the  government  and  people  of 
France. 

"  It  will  hardly  be  necessary  to  do  more  in  assigning  your  reasons  for  this  pro- 
ceeding on  your  part  than  to  say  that  we  have  more  than  once,  and  with  perfect 
distinctness  and  candor,  informed  all  the  parties  to  the  alliance  that  we  cannot 
look  .with  indifference  upon  any  avowed  intervention  for  political  ends  in  a 
country  so  near  and  so  closely  connected  with  us  as  Mexico."  p.  218.  Mexican 
Doc.,  April,  1862. 

This  deprecatory,  apologetic, 'almost  fawning  approach  to  the 
British  and  French  governments,  contrasts  with  the  manly  tone 
of  a  better  day.  In  the  year  1825,  the  government  of  France 
sent  a  large  fleet  to  the  American  seas  without  giving  notice  to 
this  government,  or  any  explanation  of  the  object.  Mr.  Clay, 
then  Secretary  of  State  under  President  J.  Q.  Adams,  instructed 
Mr.  Brown,  our  minister,  Oct.  25,  1825,  to  inform  the  French 
government  that  the  President  expects  that  "  the  purpose  of  any 
similar  movement  hereafter,"  should  be  frankly  communicated  to 
this  government.  And  he  added  that  "  if  any  sensibility  should 
be  manifested  to  what  the  French  minister  may  choose  to  regard 


38  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

as  suspicions  entertained  here,"  he  was  to  disavow  those  suspi- 
cions, but  at  the  same  time  recapitulate  the  circumstances  that 
gave  apparent  force  to  our  surprise  as  to  the  objects  of  the  move- 
ment. Mr.  Brown  replied,  Jan.  10,  1826,  that  he  had,  "  in  the 
most  delicate  and  friendly  manner,  put  it  to  the  Baron  de 
Damas,"  the  French  Secretary,  that  in  case  France  should  again 
send  out  an  unusual  force,  "  its  design  and  object  should  be  com- 
municated to  the  government  of  the. United  States."  The  Baron 
de  Damas  explained  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  and 
promised,  in  behalf  of  France,  that,  "  in  future,  the  United  States 
should  be  duly  apprised  of  the  objects  of  every  such  squadron 
sent  into  their  vicinity."  That  promise  has  never  been  vacated, 
and  its  fulfillment  should  have  been  directly  and  categorically 
demanded  by  us  on  the  first  demonstrations  towards  the  invasion 
of  Mexico.  .  But  no  such  demand  was  made.  On  the  contrary, 
Mr.  Dayton  was  directly  inhibited  from  asking  any  explanations 
whatever.  And  he  was  directed,  April  22d,  1862,  to  say  that 
"  M.  Thouvenel's  assurances  on  the  subject  of  Mexico  are  emi- 
nently satisfactory  to  the  President." 

It  is  believed  that  our  ministers  abroad,  Messrs.  Adams,  Day- 
ton, Corwin,  and  Schurtz,  did  all  that  was  becoming  their  station 
to  do,  to  impress  upon  the  administration  the  true  objects  of  the 
coalition,  the  importance  of  our  own  interests  that  were  imperil- 
'ed,  and  the  hollo wness  of  the  pretexts  with  which  we  were 
turned  off.  That  it  was  the  intention  of  the  coalition  to  effect  a 
change  of  government  in  Mexico,  was  notorious  to  all  Europe. 
It  was  impossible  for  our  ministers  to  shut  their  eyes  upon  facts 
so  patent.  We  find  Mr.  Dayton,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Seward,  June 
5th,  1862,  after  some  repetition  of  M.  Thouvenel's  fallacious  dis- 
claimers, adding  with  evident  humiliation : 

"  It  may  be  difficult  to  reconcile  the  published  opinions  of  the  commissioners 
acting  for  England  and  Spain  in  Mexico  with  these  declarations  of  the  French 
government ;  but  your  original  dispatch  instructed  me  to  say  that  I  was  not  au- 
thorized to  demand  explanations,  though  the  government  would  be  happy  to 
receive  them.  These  explanations  have  been  freely  given  ;  if  they  conflict  with 
what  has  been  said  and  done  elsewhere,  I  have  not  felt  at  liberty,  under  my  in- 
structions, to  make  such  conflict  the  subject  of  comment. 

"  Were  it  supposed,  however,  that  France  proposed  to  change  the  form  of 
government,  and  establish  a  monarchy  in  a  republic  next  to  and  adjoining  our 
own,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that,  upon  every  just  principle  of  international  law 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  39 

or  comity  between  states,  we  would  have  the  right  to  demand  explanations. 
Nor  do  I  think  that  France  would  have  felt  disposed  to  contest  such  right.  The 
explanations,  however,  such  as  they  are,  have  been  volunteered  by  them,  not  de- 
manded by  us." 

The  whole  correspondence,  as  far  as  published,  between  our 
government  and  those  of  England,  France,  and  Spain,  makes 
upon  us  the  impression  of  a  most  manifest  desire  on  our  part  not 
to  see  anything  objectionable  in  the  proceedings  of  those  Powers, 
and  a  very  friendly  willingness  on  their  part  to  make  general 
disclaimers  of  any  improper  designs.  There  appears  an  extreme 
readiness  on  our  part  to  accept  such  ambiguous  disclaimers  for  a 
great  deal  more  than  they  expressed,  and  a  careful  avoidance  of 
what  was  our  obvious  course  if  we  were  in  earnest,  which  was, 
to  ask  the  allied  Powers  what  were  their  objects,  and  what  they 
intended  to  do  to  attain  them.  This  direct  request  was  what  we 
had  a  just  right  to  make,  and  to  insist  upon  a  frank  and  full  ex- 
planation. The  treaty  of  London,  for  the  invasion  of  Mexico, 
was  signed  on  the  31st  of  October,  and  the  ratifications  were  ex- 
changed November  15th,  1861.  The  coalition  agreed  to  send  a 
combined  naval  and  military  force  sufficient  to  seize  and  occupy 
the  fortresses  of  Mexico,  and  for  other  operations  suitable  to  the 
object ;  and  they  engage  "  not  to  exercise  in  the  internal  affairs 
of  Mexico  any  influence  of  a  nature  to  prejudice  the  right  of  the 
Mexican  nation  to  choose  and  to  constitute  freely  the  form  of  its 
government."  This  carefully  studied  phraseology  is  to  be  inter- 
preted by  the  results  now  passing  before  our  eyes. 

It  would  lead  us  oyer  too  much  ground  for  the  present  pur- 
pose, to  show  by  sample  citations,  that  the  coalition  against  Mex- 
ico had  for  its  object  the  extinction  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  by 
the  actual  establishment  of  the  "  political  system  of  Europe  "  on 
this  continent  by  military  force,  and  that  it  was  a  matter  of  mu- 
tual expectation  and  calculation,  that  the  effect  of  the  invasion 
should  certainly  be  the  establishment  of  a  government  in  Mexico, 
different  from  that  in  existence  under  President  Juarez,  and  so 
far  conformed  to  European  models  as  to  constitute,  according  to 
their  ideas,  "  a  stable  government."  M.  Billaut's  speech  in  the 
French  Chamber,  on  the  26th  of  June,  1862,  after  expressing  the 
determination  not  to  treat  with  Juarez,  exclaimed, — "Let  this 


40  The  Monroe  Docinrvne. 

Mexican  government  disappear  before  the  force  of  France,  or  let 
it  take  a  more  serious  form,  which  may  offer  some  security  for 
the  future."  And  the  Emperor,  July  3d,  1862,  in  his  personal 
instructions  to  General  Forey,  on  the  line  of  conduct  which  he 
was  to  follow  in  Mexico,  directs  him  to  "  declare  that  everything 
is  provisional,"  meaning  that  the  existing  government  is  to  be. 
considered  only  informal  and  temporary,  and  without  permanent 
authority.  And  when  he  should  have  reached  Mexico,  he  was  to 
take  measures  "  with  the  principal  persons  who  have  embraced 
our  cause,"  "  with  the  view  of  organizing  a  provisional  govern- 
ment," composed,  of  course,  of  such  parties  only ;  the  pretext 
being  to  "  aid "  the  Mexicans  in  establishing  "  a  government 
which  might  have  some  chance  of  stability ;"  and  the  assumption 
being,  that  it  is  not  competent  for  a  people  to  create  such  a  gov- 
ernment by  their  own  will  alone,  unless  it  is  granted  to  them  by 
the  emperor,  or  in  some  other  way  imposed  and  supported  by 
military  force.  In  the  same  letter,  the  Emperor  gives  the  infor- 
mation of  the  ulterior  object  of  the  invasion ;  to  head  off  the 
United  States,  and  curtail  the  growing  power  of  this  republic,  so 
that  we  may  not  "  seize  possession  of  all  the  Mexican  Gulf,  dom- 
inate from  thence  the  Antilles,  as  well  as  South  America,  and  be 
the  sole  dispenser  of  the  products  of  the  New  World."  And  he 
anticipates  that,  "  if  a  stable  government  is  constituted  with  the 
assistance  of  France,  we  shall "  have  restored  to  the  "  Latin  race 
on  the  other  side  of  the  ocean  its  strength  and  prestige,"  and 
"  we  shall  have  established  our  beneficent  influence  in  the  center 
of  America."  Coupled  with  all  this  is  a  special  injunction  as  to 
the  interests  of  religion ; — by  religion  meaning  the  Church  of 
Rome,  which  is  the  principal  thing  to  be  regarded  in  this  whole 
programme  of  deceit  and  wrong. 

There  is  not  in  all  history  a  more  shameless  disregard  of  pro- 
fessions made  and  pledges  accepted,  than  the  manner  in  which 
the  Emperor  of  France  has  trampled  on  all  that  our  administra- 
tion credulously  assumed  as  his  promises  of  respect  to  the  wishes 
of  the  people  of  Mexico,  in  any  changes  of  government  which 
he  should  promote.  His  general  in  command,  in  connection  with 
the  corrupt  Saligny,  the  French  minister  resident,  proceeded  to 
create  a  new  government  of  three  persons  by  his  own  sole  author- 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  41 

ity  and  will;  these  summon  an  assembly  of  notables,  chosen  and 
designated  only  by  themselves,  without  the  shadow  of  a  form  of 
consulting  the  will  of  the  Mexican  people ;  and  this  assembly 
forthwith  establishes  a  hereditary  monarchy,  designating  Prince 
Maximilian  as  Emperor,  who  accepts  the  appointment,  relying  on 
the  French  army  to  support  him  in  the  throne.  And  this  is  now 
said  by  the  Court  Journal  of  Vienna,  Memorial  Diplomatique, 
to  be  the  carrying  out  of  a  proposal  which  was  made  by  the 
French  Emperor,  so  long  ago  as  October,  1801,  in  the  dark  days 
of  this  republic  which  followed  the  first  defeat  at  Bull  Run.  The 
eagerness  of  most  of  the  European  governments  to  congratulate 
that  of  France  upon  the  success  of  the  invasion,  attests  the  im- 
portance of  the  movement,  and  is  a  general  recognition  of  its 
real  object,  the  overthrow  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  the  ex- 
tension of  the  political  system  of  Europe  to  this  continent.  As 
the  case  now  stands,  all  Europe,  except  Eussia,  is  virtually  en- 
listed in  this  scheme.  And  thus  far,  the  apparent  success  is  com- 
plete. The  republican  government,  instituted  by  the  people,  is 
overthrown,  and  in  its  place  is  a  hereditary  monarchy,  imposed 
from  without,  and  maintained  by  military  force,  dictated  by  the 
powers  of  Europe,  and  above  all  sanctioned  by  the  Pope,  and 
devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Says  the  Lon- 
don Times  of  August  22 : 

"  Strictly  speaking,  the  French  army,  though  composed  exclusively  of  French 
soldiers,  did  but  represent  what  are  called  "  troops  of  execution  "  in  the  admin- 
istration of  confederate  Germany.  The  sentence  of  Europe  had  gone  forth 
against  Mexico,  and  she  was  put  under  the  ban  of  Christendom.  As  regarded 
the  actual  judgment  on  her  offenses,  England  and  Spain  were  not  only  of  one 
mind  with  France,  but  were  originally  engaged  even  in  the  execution  of  the 
sentence.  It  is  not  conceivable  that  under  any  government  whatever  the  Mex- 
ican should  fail  of  being  better  ruled  than  before,  and  if  France  and  Austria  can 
make  Mexico  a  state  in  which  life  and  property  are  secure,  and  public  obligations 
respected,  they  will  certainly  leave  Europe  and  Mexico  their  debtors. 

The  same  paper  had  said  on  the  llth —  * 

"  The  good  or  ill  that  may  accrue  to  the  Emperor  Napoleon  from  his  success 
must  depend  upon  the  motives  which  have  guided  him,  and  the  manner  in  which 
he  may  use  it,  but  it  would  be  vain  to  deny  that  the  feeling  of  the  merchants  of 
London  is  that  on  the  whole,  so  far  as  the  affair  has  proceeded,  he  has  done  a 
great  service,  both  political  and  commercial,  to  the  world — political,  in  confirm- 
ing the  previous  action  of  Spain  in  extinguishing  the  Monroe  Doctrine;  and 

6 


±2  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

commercial,  in  restoring  the  intercourse  of  nations  with  a  territory  which,  from 
its  geographical  position  and  mineral  wealth,  can  claim  a  general  and  almost 
exceptional  importance." 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  pages  of  a  quarterly  review 
should  keep  pace  with  the  .daily  developments  of  a  movement 
still  in  the  height  of  its  progress.  Enough  has  already  appeared 
to  convince  every  intelligent  American,  and  to  determine  the  fu- 
ture judgment  of  impartial  history,  that  the  whole  belongs  to 
one  scheme,  that  its  design  was  hostile  to  the  honor  and  safety  of 
the  United  States,  that  its  objects  reached  far  beyond  the  security 
of  the  Mexican  bonds,  that  it  was  a  conspiracy  of  European 
powers  to  force  the  political  system  of  Europe  upon  the  Amer- 
ican states,  and  establish  here  the  same  right  of  interference,  dic- 
tation, and  coercion  over  the  feebler  nations  which  has  so  long 
been  maintained  in  Europe.  Whether  it  shall  yet  be  proved  or 
not,  that  the  original  plot  embraced  and  brought  on  the  rebel- 
lion ;  there  cannot  remain  a  doubt  that  the  coalition  of  England, 
France,  and  Spain,  was  determined  on,  and  carried  into  effect, 
solely  in  consequence  of  the  supposed  inability  of  the  United 
States  at  the  moment  to  insist  on  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  It  is 
equally  evident  that  the  final  success  of  the  whole  programme 
hinges  upon  the  result  of  the  first  step,  the  breaking  up  of  the 
American  Union.  If  that  fails,  the  whole  fails.  The  apprehen- 
sion of  possible  failure  may  explain  the  change  in  the  policy  of 
the  Palmerston  administration,  in  withdrawing  the  British  forces 
from  the  actual  invasion  of  Mexico,  and  allowing  it  to  be  exten- 
sively believed  that  the  coalition  is  at  an  end,  when  in  truth  the 
treaty  of  London  is  still  unbroken  and  in  full  force.  Louis  Na- 
poleon, and  Forey,  and  Almonte  are  but  the  agents  of  the  coali- 
tion, in  carrying  out  the  "  other  operations "  authorised  and 
provided  for  in  the  treaty.*  Both  the  English  and  American 
people  ought  to  understand  that  the  British  government  has  with- 

*  "  The  commanders  of  the  allied  forces  shall  be,  moreover,  authorized  to  ex- 
ecute the  other  operations  which  may  be  considered,  on  the  spot,  most  suitable 
to  effect  the  object  specified  in  the  preamble  of  the  present  convention. 

"  All  the  -measures  contemplated  in  this  article  shall  be  taken  in  the  name,  and 
on  the  account  of  the  high  contracting  parties,  without  reference  to  the  particu- 
lar nationality  of  the  forces  employed  to  execute  them."  Treaty,  Art.  I.,  Sec.  2 
and  3. 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  43 

drawn  from  the  "  execution  "  of  the  treaty,  but  not  from  the 
treaty — as  the  head  burglar  who  forces  the  door  may  leave  his 
agents  to  gather  the  plunder,  while  he  retreats  from  the  scene  in 
order  to  plead  an  alibi  hereafter,  but  still  claiming  his  share  of 
the  spoils.  If  our  prospects,  as  seen  in  Europe,  should  continue 
to  brighten  as  they  have  for  the  past  three  months,  we  shall  ex- 
pect to  see  a  still  more  manifest  change  in  the  tone  of  Earl  Bus- 
sell's  letters.  Already,  instead  of  pushing  directly  for  war,  as  in 
the  Trent  case,  he  contents  himself  with  trying  how  far  he  can 
go  in  bullying  and  worrying  without  running  into  actual  war. 
We  may  yet  have  to  review  his  cordial  compliments  on  the  full 
re-establishment  of  the  Union,  with  the  most  friendly  assurances 
that  this  was  what  he  always  most  wished  to  see,  and  what  in 
fact  he  always  confidently  expected  would  be  accomplished. 

There  are  two  dangers,  lying  back  of  those  already  consid- 
ered, and  therefore  less  obvious  to  the  view,  which  we  now  only 
allude  to,  although  each  is  well  worthy  of  consideration  in  an 
article  by  itself.  The  first  is  the  engrafting  of  a  new  principle 
upon  the  recognized  laws  of 'nations,  in  the  right  assumed  by  the 
Great  Powers,  of  invading  and  occupying  the  territories  of  the 
feebler  nations  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  payment  of  gov- 
ernmental bonds  given  to  individual  bankers,  subjects  or  other- 
wise of  the  invading  Powers.  And  this  without  reference  to  the 
equity  of  the  case,  as  whether  the  bonds  were  given  for  a  just 
consideration,  or  by  a  regularly  constituted  and  responsible  gov- 
ernment. For  the  Jecker  bonds,  amounting  to  more  than 
$50,000,000,  on  which  alone  the  French  claim  to  interfere  was 
grounded,  were  given  by  Zuloaga  and  Miramon,  both  usurpers, 
soon  expelled  by  the  people ;  they  were  sold  at  sums  "  varying 
from  one-half  of  one  per  cent,  to  four  or  five  per  cent."  of  their 
nominal  amount  ;*  and  the  Jeckers  were  not  French  subjects  at 
the  time  the  bonds  were  given,  but  were  naturalized  during  the 
subsequent  negotiation,  and  for  its  purposes.  If  this  is  received 
as  the  law  among  nations,  that  the  Great  Powers  may  constitute 
themselves  at  once  party,  judge,  and  executioner,  to  enforce  by 
arms  the  payment  of  bonds  given  to  financiers,  and  without  re- 
gard to  the  justice  of  the  debt  itself,  then  the  smaller  powers 
*See  Mr.  Corwin's  letter  of  June  29, 1861. 


44  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

have  lost  their  independent  nationality,  and  subsist  in  form,  not 
by  any  right  in  themselves,  but  solely  by  the  permission  of  The 
King.  And  there  never  can  be  wanting  a  pretext  for  the  coer- 
cion and  subjugation  of  any  one  of  them  which  may  not  square 
its  conduct  to  the  interest  or  the  caprices  of  its  superiors.  And 
as  the  enslaver  is  always  himself  enslaved,  it  puts  the  Great 
Powers  in  their  turn  at  the  mercy  and  under  the  dictation  of  the 
lenders  of  money,  who  may  demand  their  services  at  pleasure,  in 
the  humiliation  or  annihilation  of  a  debtor  state  that  dares  to  re- 
sist or  oifend  the  Money  Power.  In  a  word,  it  enthrones  above 
all  the  governments  of  the  civilized  world,  a  supreme  and  domi- 
nant dictation,  more  cruel,  heartless,  and  irresponsible  than  his- 
tory ever  recorded,  controlling  the  industry  and  wrealth  of  the 
world  for  its  aggrandizement,  and  holding  the  forces  of  the  world 
for  its  defense,  and  for  the  execution  of  its  will ;  an  avatar  of 
"  Associated  Wealth,"  compared  with  which  the  "  monster  "  na- 
tional bank  which  Jackson  slew,  and  even  the  confederated  in- 
terest in  slavery  of  a  thousand  millions  now  being  annihilated, 
are  but  insect  annoyances. 

The  other  dangerous  element  in  the  case  before  us  is  the 
growing  arrogance  and  strength  of  the  Papal  Power  in  connec- 
tion with  all  the  progressive  developments  of  French  ambition 
and  conquest.  It  is  curious  to  see  how  everything  that  France 
does  or  gains  or  aims  at  becomes  subservient  to  the  Papal  Power, 
and  turns  to  the  disadvantage  of  religious  liberty  and  of  enlight- 
ened civilization.  Beginning  with  the  overthrow  of  the  Roman 
Repubjic,  and  the  still  continued  armed  occupancy  of  Rome  by 
a  French  army,  as  the  only  means  of  upholding  the  Pope  in  his 
throne  as  a  temporal  prince,  we  see  in  Cochin  China,  in  Mada- 
gascar, in  Turkey,  in  Spanish  America,  in  Poland,  and  every- 
where, that  it  is  the  support  and  favor  of  the  Pope  which 
constitutes  Louis  Napoleon's  reliance  in  the  last  resort ;  and  it  is 
the  extension  and  consolidation  of  the  Papal  Power  which  gives 
unity  to  all  his  aims,  and  the  strength  of  a  common  interest  to 
all  his  schemes.  It  is  nowr  clearly  understood  that  the  outbreak 
in  Poland  was  but  a  plan  for  establishing  in  the  center  of  Europe 
a  Franco-Rotoisb  interest  that  should  serve  as  a  point  of  defense 
and  aggression  against  Russia  and  the  Greek  Church.  It  is  Po- 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  45 

pery,  struggling  against  the  advance  of  freedom  and  civilization, 
that  has  for  forty  years  kept  the  Spanish  American  States  in  tur- 
moil, and  kept  them  from  consolidating  their  governments,  or 
improving  their  conditions.  In  Venezuela,  in  Columbia,  in 
Ecuador,  everywhere,  it  is  the  Priests'  Party  against  the  body  of 
the  people ;  the  people  striving  to  recover  the  right  of  governing 
for  themselves,  and  the  Priests,  aided  by  a  few  bigots,  a  few  rich 
men,  a  few  European  Know-nothings,  and  a  good  many  reckless 
and  marauding  brigands,  trying  to  keep  the  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment in  the  hands  of  a  class,  and  subject  the  many  to  the 
control  of  a  few.  This  power  has  at  length  been  happily  put 
down,  at  least  for  the  present,  by  the  gallant  and  patriotic  Presi- 
dent Mosquera  in  Colombia.  It  has  succumbed,  at  least  tempo- 
rarily, to  a  compromise  in  Venezuela ;  while,  in  the  adjoining 
republic  of  Ecuador,  it  has  apparently  achieved  an  absolute  tri- 
umph, in  the  treaty  which  was  concluded  in  April  last,  by 
President  Moreno  with  Cardinal  Antonelli  in  the  name  of  the 
Pope.*  And  one  of  the  chief  ends  of  the  conquest  of  Mexico 

*  This  treaty,  which  has  been  published  in  M  National,  the  official  journal  of 
Ecuador,  contains  the  following  articles,  which  serve  to  illustrate  the  Pope's  ideas 
of  religious  liberty,  where  he  has  things  in  his  own  way  : 

"  1.  The  Roman  Catholic  and  Apostolic  religion  is  the  religion  of  the  Republic 
of  Ecuador.  Consequently,  the  exercise  of  any  other  worship,  or  the  existence 
of  any  society  condemned  by  the  Church,  will  not  be  permitted  by  the  Republic. 

"  2.  The  education  of  the  young  in  all  public  and  private  schools  shall  be 
entirely  conformed  to  the  doctrines  of  the  [Roman]  Catholic  Religion.  The 
teachers,  the  books,  the  instructions  imparted,  &c.,  &c.,  [the  provisions  are  given 
in  a  very  condensed  form],  shall  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the  bishops. 

"3.  Government  will  give  its  powerful  patronage  and  its  support  to  the  bish- 
ops in  their  resistance  to  the  evil  designs  of  wicked  persons,  &c. 

"  4.  All  matrimonial  causes,  and  all  those  which  concern  the  faith,  the  sacra- 
ments, the  public  morals,  &c.,  are  placed  under  the  sole  jurisdiction  of  the  eccle- 
siastical tribunals,  and  the  civil  magistrates  shall  be  charged  to  carry  them  into 
execution.  The  priests  shall  confine  themselves  to  consulting  the  lay  judges,  if 
they  think  proper  to  do  so. 

"  6.  The  privileges  of  churches  [the  ancient  right  of  asylum  in  consecrated 
buildings]  shall  be  fully  respected." 

The  Philadelphia  Catholic  Herald  and  Visitor,  August  5th,  exults : 

"  A  most  satisfactory  Concordat  has  been  concluded  between  the  Holy  See  and 
the  Republic  of  Ecuador,  in  South  America.  In  that  exclusively  Catholic  coun- 
try, the  public  exercise  of  no  other  worship  than  the  Catholic  is  to  be  allowed.  The 
bishops  are  to  have  the  control  of  the  education  of  youth,  and  to  propose  three 


46  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

by  France,  is  announced  to  be  the  ascendency  of  the  Latin  race, 
and  the  restoration  of  the  Church  of  Kome  to  its  ancient  honor 
and  power  in  the  country.  The  confiscation  already  begun  of 
the  estates  of  all  Mexicans  guilty  of  the  crime  of  supporting 
their  own  constitutional  government,  will  prepare  the  way  for  the 
restoration  of  the  estates  of  the  Church,  valued  at  a  hundred 
millions  of  dollars,  heretofore  sequestered  for  the  uses  of  the 
state. 

In  former  days,  the  civilized  world  has  been  accustomed  to 
rely  for  protection  against  any  unwarrantable  aggressions  of 
Rome,  upon  the  vigilance  and  strength  of  the  two  great  Protes- 
tant Powers,  Prussia  and  England.  And  it  is  a  most  unfortunate 
coincidence,  that  just  at  this  time,  when  the  Papal  Power  is  so 
rapidly  consolidating  itself,  and  extending  its  influence  over  many 
countries,  Prussia  is  well  nigh  powerless  for  any  good  purpose, 
by  the  insensate  relapse  of  the  present  monarch  into  the  wildest 
madness  of  absolutism  ;  while  the  government  of  England  is  un- 
der the  administration  of  a  chief  who  seems  to  have  become, 
practically,  but  a  mere  satrap  of  Louis  Napoleon.  Mr.  Kinglake, 
in  his  remarkable  volume  on  the  Crimean  War,  before  referred 
to,  has  described  the  process  by  which  Great  Britain  was  drawn, 
wholly  beyond  her  intentions  and  against  her  interests,  into  that 
most  bootless  conflict.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  that  the 
same  fallacious  entente  cordiale  will  not  be  made  available  to 
draw  her  onward,  nolens  volens,  into  whatever  ulterior  national 
embroilments  the  conquest  of  Mexico  may  lead  to,  in  the  interest 
of  Popery  and  Absolutism. 

In  these  frank  and  honest  animadversions  on  the  conduct  of 
our  affairs,  we  would  not  be  understood  as  affirming  that  these 
evils,  felt  and  feared,  might  have  been  prevented  by  a  more  open, 
a«nd  flrm,  and  earnest  maintenance  of  our  point  of  honor  before 
Europe ;  or  that  the  conspiracy  of  crowned  heads  against  repub- 
lican liberty  could  have  been  broken  up  in  the  year  1861,  as  it 
was  in  1823,  by  the  mere  utterance  of  the  magic  words  of  the 

candidates  for  the  vacant  episcopal  sees  to  the  selection  of  the  President  and  of 
the  Rope.  No  Exequatur,  no  Piedmontism,  no  Gallicanism,  no  shortcomings. 
The  Hispano- American  population,  in  the  State  of  Ecuador,  mean  to  be  truly  and 
generously  Catholic  /" 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  47 

Monroe  Doctrine.  Things  are  not  as  they  were  forty  years  ago 
in  many  particulars,  as  we  have  too  much  reason  to  know.  But 
we  are  quite  confident  that,  if  there  had  been  in  1861  a  firm  and 
fearless  reaffirmation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  in  its  plain  mean- 
ing, as  a  long  established  principle  from  which  the  United  States 
could  never  depart  under  any  circumstances,  and  had  our  gov- 
ernment put  to  each  of  the  governments  concerned  in.  the  coali- 
tion against  Mexico,  a  direct  and  categorical  question  as  to  the 
objects  of  the  invasion  and  the  methods  proposed  for  their  attain- 
ment, with  the  intimation  that  we  expected  a  frank  and  explicit 
answer,  our  title  to  which  had  been  recognized  in  years  long  gone 
by — it  might  not  have  defeated  the  plot,  but  it  might  have  caused 
a  hitch  in  the  progress  of  the  negotiations  ;  and  it  would,  at  any 
rate,  have  placed  us  right  on  the  record  before  Europe  whenever 
the  crisis  should  come,  as  come  it  must.  And  it  would  have 
given  proof  to  the  world  of  our  continued  confidence  in  the  sta- 
bility of  our  institutions,  and  in  the  inherent  strength  of  our 
government  to  maintain  itself,  which  might  have  helped  to  change 
the  course  of  public  opinion  on  that  continent  among  all  that  are 
capable  of  forming  an  intelligent  judgment  as  to  political  causes 
and  effects.  A  single  sentence  of  plain  Saxon  English,  at  that 
juncture,  would  have  done  more  for  us,  than  whole  quires  of 
flashy  oratory  and  glowing  prophecies  always  made  ridiculous  by 
events.  The  world  would  have  seen  by  such  a  declaration  in 
advance  of  the  victories  of  our  arms,  that  the  spirit  of  the  re- 
public was  wholly  unbroken,  and  that  we  exacted  from  other  na- 
tions the  same  respect  and  deference,  which  they  were  ready 
enough  to  pay  us  in  the  glorious  days  of  President  Monroe. 
They  would  have  felt  that  the  determination  to  ask  nothing  but 
what  is  right,  and  to  submit  to  nothing  that  is  wrong,  is  just  as 
indomitable  under  President  Lincoln  as  it  was  under  General 
Jackson.  A  nation  that  is  always  sensitive  to  its  point  of  honor, 
is  always  respected  among  nations,  if  it  has  any  force  whatever. 
And  we  might  have  been  spared  many  a  supercilious  affront  from 
Palmerston,  and  many  an  insolent  rebuke  from  Russell,  and 
many  an  impertinent  offer  of  interference  from  Louis  Napoleon, 
if,  at  the  lowest  point  of  our  disasters,  we  had  taken  that  occa- 
sion to  re-assert  our  highest  self-respect  as  the  leading  republic  of 


48  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

the  New  World,  and  the  ready  representative  of  the  Political 
System  of  America,  with  which  European  politics  had  no  busi- 
ness to  interfere.* 

But  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  dead.  It  will  not  die,  for 
truth  never  dies,  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  an  axiomatic  truth 
in  political  science.  It  is  as  true  now  as  it  was  when  Washing- 
ton issued  his  Farewell  Address,  that  "  Europe  has  a  set  of  pri- 
mary interests,  which  to  us  have  none  or  a  very  remote  relation. 
Hence  she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  controversies,  the  causes 
of  which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns."  It  is  as  true 
now  as  it  was  when  Mr.  Monroe  issued  his  Declaration,  that 
"  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  European  powers  to  extend  their 
system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere,"  IS  "  dangerous  to  our 
peace  and  safety."  And  we  of  this  day  have  been  brought  at 
length  by  the  cogent  force  of  events,  to  see  as  clearly  as  that 
golden  administration  saw,  that  "  any  interposition  "  with  any  of 
the  American  nations,  "by  any  European  power,"  for  the  purpose 
of  "  controlling  their  destiny,"  IS  "  the  manifestation  of  an  un- 
friendly disposition  towards  the  United  States."  Those  who 
have  doubted,  now  see  it  plainly.  The  efforts  for  forty  years,  of 
selfish  partisans,  of  timid  statesmen,  of  political  sciolists,  of  ve- 
nal scribblers,  or  of  covert  reactionaries,  to  make  it  out  that  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  was  a  ~brutum  fulmen,  which  struck  no  blow 
and  made  no  mark,  and  then  vanished  into  thin  air,  are  all  blown 
to  the  winds.  The  clouds  which  temporarily  shrouded  it  from 
general  view,  have  been  rolled  away  by  the  winds  from  Mexico 
and  South  America,  and  the  Doctrine  shines  forth  as  the  politi- 
cal cynosure  by  which  we  are  to  steer  our  national  course  through 
this  sea  of  difficulties,  until  the  Imperial  Kepublic  shall  resume 
her  proper  honors,  and  take  the  foremost  place  among  the  na- 
tions, as  a  light  to  oppressed  millions,  and  the  political  regenera- 
tor of  the  world. 

What  is  next  to  be  done,  is  not  for  us  to  prescribe.     By  what 


*  In  the  maintenance  of  a  professed  neutrality  between  Mexico  our  friend,  and 
France  our  enemy,  we  seem  to  have  followed  the  American  rule  where  it  went 
against  Mexico,  and  the  European  rule  where  it  favored  France — prohibiting  the 
export  of  arms,  which  the  former  was  destitute  of,  and  allowing  that  of  mules 
to  the  latter. 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.      *  49 

steps  or  through  what  struggles  on  our  part  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
is  to  be  restored  topts  ancient  respect  in  the  counsels  of  European 
dynasties,  will  depend  more  upon  the  wishes  of  those  Powers 
than  on  our  own.  The  United  States  have  long  ago  reached  that 
condition  of  conscious  strength  anticipated  by  Washington,  when 
under  any  European  intrusion  "  we  may  choose  peace  or  war,  as 
our  interest,  guided  by  our  justice,  shall  counsel."*  Should  the 
European  Powers  receive  the  lessons  of  our  recent  successes,  and 
speedily  withdraw  their  criminal  aggressions  on  a  neighboring 
republic,  thus  paying  their  old  homage  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
that  is  well.  Should  they  make  open  war  upon  us,  we  shall  meet 
them  as  best  we  may,  notwithstanding  our  embarrassments  with 
the  rebellion.  Such  a  country  as  this,  inhabited  by  such  a  peo- 
ple, and  blessed  with  such  institutions  and  such  a  history,  is  worth 
a  struggle  of  a  hundred  years  against  the  world  in  arms,  before 
we  allow  the  Political  System  of  Europe  to  be  extended  over  us 
by  all  the  military  force  that  can  be  brought  against  us.  Should 
they  merely  continue  their  intrusions  and  impertinencies,  we  can 
afford  to  consult  our  own  convenience,  and  choose  our  own  time 
for  appealing  to  the  last  resort  of  injured  nations  for  redress  of 
the  wrong. 

And  if  the  European  Powers  should  see  n't  to  press  the  mat- 
ter to  its  ultimate  issue,  we  shall  not  shrink  from  our  proper  res- 
ponsibility, as  a  free  people  and  the  friends  of  free  institutions. 
And  the  Powers  may  be  sure  that  we  shall  not  stand  wholly  on 
the  defensive.  We  will  say  no  word  and  do  no  act  implying  an 
admission  that  the  Political  System  of  America  is  less  honorable 
than  that  of  Europe,  or  less  true,  or  less  beneficient,  or  less  wor- 
thy of  heroic  sacrifices  in  its  cause,  or  less  deserving  of  universal 
adoption.  The  question  will  then  lie  between  the  European 
System  for  America,  and  the  American  System  for  Europe.  If, 
by  their  machinations  or  aggressions,  we  are  once  involved  in 
their  conflicts  against  our  will,  there  will  be  no  more  peace  for 
us  or  for  them,  until  the  American  ideas  of  national  indepen- 
dence and  responsibility  have  been  spread  over  the  countries  of 
the  Old  World,  and  the  doctrines  of  national  interference  and 

^Farewell  Address. 


50  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

f> 

the  Balance  of  Power  have  been  cast  among  the  rubbish  with  the 
systems  of  absolutism  and  popular  ignorance  which  they  were 
devised  to  support.  And  let  God  give  the  victory  to  the  right ! 


ADDITIONAL   NOTE. 

Since  this  article  was  written,  a  letter  has  appeared  from  Mr.  Everett,  the  object  of  which 
is  to  show  that  the  English  government  originated  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  urged  its  adop- 
tion, quoting  in  proof  the  account  of  Mr.  Canning's  negotiations  with  Mr.  Rush,  as  narrated 
by  the  latter.  It  is  true  that  the  British  government  and  nation  welcomed  the  announcement 
by  Mr.  Monroe,  as  a  seasonable  help,  and  is  therefore  justly  bound  by  its  own  consistency  not 
to  complain  of  our  continued  adherence  to  the  same  principle.  But  a  careful  perusal  of  the 
whole  of  Mr.  Rush's  account  will  show  a  material  difference  between  what  Mr.  Canning  ask- 
ed and  what  Mr.  Monroe  did.  Mr.  Canning's  object  was  a  British  advantage — to  bring  in  the 
United  States  as  an  auxiliary  to  British  negotiations.  What  Mr.  Monroe  did  was  for  Amer- 
ican honor,  placing  the  United  States  on  the  high  vantage  ground  of  national  equality,  and  of 
independent  impartiality  towards  all  nations.  It  is  the  difference  between  patronage  and 
manly  equality,  between  a  measure  and  a  principle,  between  a  temporary  expedient  in  aid  of 
England,  and  a  system  of  policy  for  the  paramount  welfare  of  the  American  Continent.  Yet 
Mr.  Canning's  representations  are  well  worthy  of  being  deeply  pondered  by  both  continents  : 
Mr.  Rush  having  stated  that  it  had  been  the  traditionary  rule  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  not  to  interfere  with  European  politics,  Mr.  Canning  replied : 

"  However  just  such  a. policy  might  have  been  formerly,  or  might  continue  to  be  as  a  general 
policy,  he  apprehended  that  powerful  and  controlling  circumstances  made  it  inapplicable  upon 
the  present  occasion.  The  question  was  a  new  and  complicated  one  in  modern  affairs.  It 
was  also  full  as  much  American  as  European,  to  say  no  more.  It  concerned  the  United  States 
under  aspects  and  interests  as  immediate  and  commanding  as  it  did  or  could  any  of  the  States 
of  Europe.  They  were  the  first  Power  established  on  that  Continent,  and  confessedly  the 
leading  Power.  They  were  connected  with  Spanish  America  by  their  position,  as  with  Eu- 
rope by  their  relations  ;  and  they  also  stood  connected  with  these  new  States  by  political 
relations.  Was  it  possible  that  they  could  see  with  indifference  their  fate  decided  upon  by  Eu- 
rope ?  Could  Europe  expect  thit*  indifference  ?  Had  not  a  new  epoch  arrived  in  the  relative 
position  of  the  United  States  toward  Europe  which  Europe  must  acknowledge  ?  Were  the 
great  political  and  commercial  interests  which  hung  upon  the  destinies  of  the  new  Continent  to 
be  canvassed  and  adjusted  in  this  hemisphere,  without  the  cooperation  or  even  knowledge  of  the 
United  States?  Were  they  to  be  canvassed  and  adjusted,  he  would  even  add,  without  some 
proper  understanding  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  as  the  two  chief  commer- 
cial and  maritime  States  of  both  worlds  ?  He  hoped  not.  he  would  wish  to  persuade  himself 
not/' 


LOYAL    PUBLICATION   SOCIETY, 

863      BROADWAY. 


J\"o.    34. 

THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE, 

BY  EDWARD  EVERETT. 


LETTER  OF  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 
BALANCE  OF  POWER  IN  EUROPE. 


NEW    YORK,    OCT.,    1863. 


NEW  YOKK: 

WM.  C.  BRYANT  &  Co.,  PRINTERS,  41  NASSAU  STREET,  COR.  LIBERTY. 

1863. 


LOYAL    PUBLICATION   SOCIETY, 

ROHM    Y©G3K. 


The  objects  of  the  Society  are  expressed  in  the  following  Resolu- 
tion^ formally  adopted  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Society ', 
at  its  first  Meeting,  14  JFebruary,  1863. 

Resolved,  That  the  object  of  this  organization  is,  and  shall  be  confined  to 
the  distribution  of  Journals  and  Documents  of  unquestionable  and  uncondi- 
tional loyalty  throughout  the  United  States,  and  particularly  in  the  Armies 
now  engaged  in  the  suppression  of  the  Rebellion,  and  to  counteract,  as  far  as 
practicable,  the  efforts  now  being  made  by  the  enemies  of  the  Government 
and  the  advocates  of  a  disgraceful  peace  to  circulate  journals  and  documents 
of  a  disloyal  character. 


Persons  sympathising  with  the  objects  of  this  Society  and  wish 
ing  to  contribute  funds  for  its  support,  may  address 

MOEEIS   KETCHUM,    ESQ.,  Treasurer,  40  Exchange  Place, 
Receipts  will  be  promptly  returned. 


LOYAL  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY. 

863      BROADWAY. 

JTo. 


' 

libran/*  }, 

v 

THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE. 


PAPER   BY    EDWARD    EVERETT, 


Reprinted,  by  permission,   from  the   New    York  Ledger. 


In  an  elaborate  article  in  the  London  Quarterly  Review  for 
January,  1862,*  among  the  facts  adduced  to  prove  that  the 
United  States  had  pursued  for  fifty  years  an  offensive  course 
toward  Great  Britain,  showing  herself  "  not  a  loyal  friend,  but 
a  grasping  and  bullying  enemy,"  it  was  mentioned  that  Presi- 
dent Pierce,  on  occasion  of  the  negotiation  between  the  two 
countries,  relative  to  Central  America,  had  "  avowed  his  ad- 
herence to  what  is  called  the  Monroe  doctrine."  At  the  close 


*  NOTE. — In  this  Article  on  the  Trent  affair,  it  was  maintained,  that  the 
capture  of  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  was  but  one  of  a  series  of  studied  insults 
offered  by  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain  during  the  last  fifty  years,  and 
these  alleged  insults  were  briefly  enumerated  and  commented  upon  by  the 
reviewer.  In  a  series  of  articles  in  the  New  York  Ledger,  commenced  in 
1862  and  continued  during  the  preset  year,  these  so-called  insults  have  been 
carefully  examined  by  Mr.  Edward  Everett.  We  understand  that  his  articles 
will  be  published  in  a  collective  form.  In  the  meantime,  we  have  obtained 
permission  to  reprint  the  last  of  them,  whioh  is  on  "  The  Monroe  Doctrine," 
as  one  of  the  tracts  of  the  "  Loyal  Publication  Society  of  New  York."  It  ap- 
peared originally  in  the  Ledger  for  the  3d  October  last. 


of  the  article  I  observed,  that,  as  far  as  the  so-called  Monroe 
doctrine  "  bore  upon  the  affairs  of  Spanish  America,  it  had  the 
concurrence  and  warm  approval  of  the  British  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Mr.  George  Canning." 

It  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that,  so  soon  after  Mr.  Canning's 
time,  the  Monroe  doctrine  should  so  far  have  lost  favor  in  Eng- 
land, that  it  should  be  characterized  by  a  leading  journalist  as 
a  national  insult,  and  the  act  of  a  grasping  and  bullying  enemy, 
for  an  American  President  to  adhere  to  it.  Even  if  the  English 
government  had  wholly  changed  its  own  views  on  this  subject 
(of  which  I  have  seen  no  proof ),  it  was  surely  no  matter  of 
offense  that  an  American  President  adhered  to  a  declaration  of 
one  of  his  predecessors,  made  not  merely  with  the  approval  of 
the  British  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  but,  as  I  shall  presently 
show,  at  his  earnest  and  persevering  solicitation. 

But  though  the  British  government,  as  far  as  I  am  aware, 
has  given  no  intimation  that  it  has  changed  its  views  on  this 
subject  (unless  such  an  intimation  is  found  in  the  lately  repeated 
remark  of  Lord  Palmerston,  that  perfect  harmony  exists  be- 
tween France  and  England  as  to  the  foreign  policy  of  the  two 
powers),  it  is  confidently  stated  that  the  merchants  of  London 
"  are  well  pleased  with  the  course  pursued  by  Louis  Napoleon 
in  Mexico."  The  following  statement  is  found  in  the  City  Ar- 
ticle of  a  recent  number  of  the  London  Times  :  "  It  would  be 
vain  to  deny  that  the  feeling  of  the  merchants  of  London  is  that, 
on  the  whole,  so  far  as  the  affair  has  proceeded,  the  Emperor 
Napoleon  has  done  a  great  service,  both  political  and  commer- 
cial, to  the  world— political,  in  confirming  the  previous  action 
of  Spain  in  extinguishing  the  Monroe  doctrine  ;  and  commer- 
cial, in  restoring  the  intercourse  of  nations  with  a  territory  which, 
from  its  geographical  position  and  mineral  wealth,  can  claim  a 
general  and  almost  exceptional  importance." 

It  is  verj  likely  that  individual  "  merchants  of  London," 


concerned  in  running  the  blockade,  or  in  speculating  in  the 
Confederate  loan,  may  be  pleased  with  any  event  which  may 
make  difficulty  between  France  and  the  United  States,  but  I 
greatly  doubt  that  the  "  merchants  of  London,"  as  a  body,  are 
delighted  to  have  either  the  commerce  or  politics  of  Mexico 
controlled  from  the  Tuileries.  As  for  the  statement  just  quoted, 
it  contains  a  grave  error  of  fact.  Spain  has  never,  that  I  am 
aware  of,  attempted  "  to  extinguish  the  Monroe  doctrine."  On 
the  contrary,  from  the  moment  she  recognized  the  independence 
of  her  revolted  colonies,  she  acquiesced  in  that  doctrine,  which, 
as  far  as  concerned  those  colonies,  was,  that  the  United  States 
would  not  be  indifferent  to  any  attempt  of  France  and  the  Holy 
Alliance  to  aid  Spain  in  subjugating  them. 

!Nbt  only  has  Spain  made  no  attempt  to  "  extinguish "  the 
Monroe  doctrine,  but,  conjointly  with  England,  she  withdrew 
from  the  expedition  lately  undertaken  in  concert  by  the  three 
powers,  as  soon  as  she  found  that  France  intended  to  conquer 
and  occupy  the  country.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how  far  Spain, 
a  proud  and  sensitive  power  of  the  Latin  stock,  will  rejoice  at 
having  her  ancient  colonial  kingdom  of  New  Spain  turned  into 
an  empire,  for  the  benefit  of  a  German  prince,  by  the  fiat  of  the 
sovereign  of  France,  and  with  remainder  to  any  other  candidate 
to  be  named  by  him,  if  the  Archduke  Maximilian  should 
decline. 

The  point,  however,  which  I  propose  at  present  to  illustrate 
is,  that  the  doctrine,  whose  extinguishment  is  now  considered 
by  "  the  London  merchants  "  so  great  a  political  and  commer- 
cial benefit,  was  announced  by  President  Monroe,  not  merely 
with  the  approval  of  the  British  Minister  of  ForeignAffairs,  but 
at  Ms  earnest  and  often  repeated  solicitations. 

In  December,  1822,  the  dominion  of  Spain  over  her  former 
colonies  on  the  continent  of  America  being  manifestly  at  an  end, 
England  determined  so  far  to  recognize  them  as  to  send  consuls 


to  some  of  the  principal  ports.  In  March  following  (1823),  Mr. 
Canning,  at  that  time  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  addressed  a 
despatch  to  the  British  Minister  at  Madrid,  in  which,  while  he 
disclaimed,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  all  intention  of  appro- 
priating to  herself  the  smallest  portion  of  the  late  Spain  colonies, 
he  intimated  at  the  same  time,  his  conviction,  that  "  no  attempt 
would  be  made  by  France  to  bring  under  her  dominion  any  of 
those  possessions,  either  by  conquest  or  cession  from  Spain." 
France,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  at  this  time  invading  Spain 
for  the  purpose  of  putting  down  the  constitutional  government 
and  restoring  Ferdinand  Seventh  to  absolute  power.  As  the 
invasion  drew  near  to  a  successful  issue,  symptoms  began  to  ap- 
pear of  a  design  on  the  part  of  the  French  government,  to 
reimburse  themselves  for  the  expenses  of  the  expedition  out  of  the 
American  colonies,  and  in  order  to  paralyze  the  expected  op- 
position of  England,  to  call  a  congress  of  the  continental  powers 
forming  the  "  Holy  Alliance."  They  were  depended  upon  to 
sustain  France  in  this  movement,  because  the  Spanish  colonies 
were  regarded  by  the  members  of  the  Holy  Alliance  as  rebel- 
lious subjects,  setting  at  defiance  the  authority  of  their  legitimate 
sovereign. 

The  great  object  which  the  British  government  now  proposed 
to  itself,  under  the  auspices  of  Mr.  Canning,  was  to  baffle  these 
designs  of  France  and  the  Holy  Alliance  on  the  Spanish  colonies, 
and  for  this  there  were  three  motives  :  1.  To  avenge  the  affront 
offered  to  Great  Britain  by  the  invasion  of  her  ally,  Spain ;  2. 
To  "  redress  the  balance  of  power  disturbed  in  the  East  by  call- 
ing into  existence  a  new  world  in  the  West ;"  3.  To  procure 
for  England  the  benefit  of  an  unrestricted  commerce  with  the 
American  colonies.  Fearing,  however,  that  a  formal  recogni- 
tion of  the  independence  of  those  colonies  would  involve 
England  in  a  war  with  the  continental  powers,  Mr.  Canning 
determined  to  try  the  efficacy  of  an  "  open,  etraighforward 


declaration  of  Ms  future  intentions."  Hia  first  step,  in  order  to 
give  added  weight  to  such  a  declaration,  was  to  solicit  the  co- 
operation of  the  American  government.  Accordingly,  on  the 
16th  of  August,  1823,  in  an  interview  with  Mr.  Rush,  he 
inquired  whether  the  United  States  would  not  join  Great 
Britain  in  such  a  declaration,  adding  that  if  France  entertained 
designs  on  Mexico,  he  (Mr.  Canning)  "  was  satisfied  that  the 
knowledge  that  the  United  States  would  be  opposed  to  it  as 
well  as  England,  could  not  fail  to  have  its  decisive  influence 
in  checking  it."  Mr.  Hush,  being  without  instructions,  could 
make  no  reply  to  this  overture,  except  that  he  would  com- 
municate it  to  his  government. 

On  the  22d  of  the.  month,  being  about  to  leave  town,  Mr. 
Canning  addressed  an  unofficial  and  confidential  note  to  Mr. 
Hush,  renewing  the  overture  for  a  joint  declaration  to  be 
made'  by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  to  the  effect 
that,  while  they  aimed  at  the  possession  of  no  portion  of  the 
Spanish  colonies  for  themselves,  and  would  not  obstruct  any 
amicable  negotiations  which  Spain,  as  the  mother  country, 
might  attempt  with  them,  "they  could  not  see  the  transfer 
of  any  portion  of  them  to  any  other  power  with  indifference." 

Four  days  later,  being  then  at  Liverpool,  Mr.  Canning  wrote 
a  second  letter  to  Mr.  Rush,  urging  the  joint  declaration,  on  the 
ground  that  information  had  reached  him  that,  as  soon  as  France 
had  effected  her  military  objects  in  Spain,  a  proposal  would  be 
made  for  a  European  congress  to  settle  the  affairs  of  Spanish 
America. 

Five  days  later  (31st  August)  Mr.  Canning  addressed  a  third 
letter  to  Mr.  Rush  from  the  country,  intimating  that  events 
might  make  it  necessary  for  him  to  act  without  waiting  for  the 
co-operation  of  the  United  States.  On  his  return  to  town  on 
the  18th  of  September,  he  had  another  conference  with  Mr. 
Rush  on  the  same  subject,  in  the  course  of  which  he  pressed 


upon  the  American  Minister,  to  the  point  of  importunity ',  the 
expediency  of  the  proposed  declaration.  In  case  a  congress  of 
the  European  powers  should  be  called  to  dispose  of  the  affairs 
of  Spanish  America,  he  stated  that  he  should  insist  on  the 
United  States  being  represented.  Mr.  Rush  yielded  so  far  to 
Mr.  Canning's  urgent  solicitations  as  to  promise  at  length,  if 
Great  Britain  would  at  once  recognize  the  Spanish  colonies, 
that  he  would  take  the  responsibility,  even  without  instructions, 
of  joining  in  the  declaration. 

Eight  days  after  this  interview,  another  conference  took  place 
between  Mr.  Rush  and  Mr.  Canning,  at  the  request  of  the  lat- 
ter, still  earnestly  soliciting  the  co-operation  of  the  United 
States.  Mr.  Rush  having  made  the  recognition  of  the  Spanish 
colonies  by  England  a  condition  precedent,  Mr.  Canning  now 
asked  if  he  would  not  join  in  the  declaration,  provided  England 
would  promise  to  recognize  the  colonies  hereafter.  The  subject 
was  discussed  at  two  other  interviews  between  Mr.  Canning  and 
Mr.  Rush,  in  the  course  of  the  autumn,  and  the  reader  will  per- 
haps be  pleased  to  see  a  specimen  of  the  arguments  by  which 
the  former  urged  the  adoption  by  the  United  States,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  England,  of  the  Monroe  doctrine.  Mr.  Rush  having 
stated  that  it  had  been  the  traditionary  rule  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States  not  to  interfere  with  European  politics,  Mr. 
Canning  replied : 

"  However  just  such  a  policy  might  have  been  formerly,  or 
"  might  continue  to  be  as  a  general  policy,  he  apprehended  that 
"  powerful  and  controlling  circumstances  made  it  inapplicable 
"  upon  the  present  occasion.  The  question  was  a  new  and  com- 
"  plicated  one  in  modern  affairs.1  It  was  also  full  as  much  Ameri- 
"  can  as  European,  to  say  no  more.  It  concerned  the  United  States 
"  under  aspects  and  interests  as  immediate  and  commanding,  as  it 
"  did  or  could  any  of  the  states  of  Europe.  They  were  the  first 
"  power  established  on  that  continent,  and  confessedly  the  leading 
"  power.  They  were  connected  with  Spanish  America  by  their  po- 


"  sition,  as  with  Europe  by  their  relations ;  and  they  also  stood  con- 
"  nected  with  these  new  states  by  political  relations.  Was  it  pos- 
"  sible  that  they  could  see  with  indifference  their  fate  decided  upon 
"  by  Europe  f  Could  Europe  expect  this  indifference  ?  Had  not 
"  a  new  epoch  arrived  in  the  relative  position  of  the  United  States 
"  toward  Europe  which  Europe  must  acknowledge  ?  Were  the 
"  great  political  and  commercial  interests,  which  hung  upon  the 
"destinies  of  the  new  Continent,  to  ~be  canvassed  and  adjusted  in 
"  this  hemisphere,  without  the  co-operation,  or  even  'knowledge  of 
"  the  United  States  f  Were  they  to  be  canvassed  and  adjusted, 
"  he  would  even  add,  without  some  proper  understanding  be- 
"  tween  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  as  the  two  chief 
"  commercial  and  maritime  states  of  both  worlds  ?  He  hoped 
"  not,  he  would  wish  to  persuade  himself  not." 

Such  was  the  vehemence  with  which  Mr.  Canning  urged  the 
United  States  to  assume  the  ground  of  the  Monroe  doctrine. 
Mr.  Rush,  of  course,  communicated  these  overtures  from  time  to 
time  to  his  government.  His  first  despatches  on  the  subject 
were  received  in  Washington  by  the  end  of  August,  1823.  The 
subject  immediately  engaged  the  attention  of  Mr.  Monroe  and 
his  cabinet.  In  addition  to  the  counsel  of  his  official  advisers, 
the  President  sought  that  of  Mr.  Jeiferson,  to  whom  he  sent 
copies  of  Mr.  Rush's  letters.  Mr.  Jeiferson  warmly  recommend- 
ed the  step  proposed  by  Mr.  Canning,  and  encouraged  Mr.  Mon- 
roe to  make  the  desired  declaration.  His  cabinet  concurred  in 
the  advice,  and  accordingly,  in  his  message  at  the  opening  of  the 
next  session  of  Congress,  the  President,  after  alluding  to  the 
radical  difference  of  the  political  systems  of  Europe  and  Ame- 
rica, expressed  himself  as  follows : 

"  We  owe  it  therefore  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable  relations 
"  existing  between  the  United  States  and  those  powers  to  de- 
"  clare,  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to 
"  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere,  as  dan- 
"  gerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or 
"  dependencies  of  any  European  power  we  have  not  interfered 


"  and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  governments  who  have 
"  declared  their  independence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  in- 
"  dependence  we  have  on  great  consideration  and  on  just  prin- 
"  ciples  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any  interposition  for 
"  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them  or  controlling  in  any  other 
"  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European  power,  in  any  other 
"  light  tli  an  as  a  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  to- 
"  ward  the  United  States." 

Such,  as  far  as  Spanish  America  is  concerned,  was  this  cele- 
brated declaration  to  which  Mr.  Canning  had  so  importunely 
urged  the  United  States.  In  another  part  of  the  same  message, 
and  in  reference  to  the  negotiation  with  Rusua,  relative  to  the 
boundaries  of  the  two  powers  on  the  north-western  coast  of  the 
continent,  President  Monroe  observed  that, 

"  In  the  discussion  to  which  this  interest  has  given  rise,  the 
"  occasion  has  been  judged  proper  for  asserting,  as  a  principle, 
"  in  which  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States  are  in- 
"  volved,  that  the  American  Continents,  by  the  free  and  indepen- 
"  dent  condition  wrhich  they  have  assumed  and  maintain,  are 
"  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future  coloni- 
"  zation  by  any  European  power." 

These  two  statements  of  principle,  in  parts  of  Mr.  Monroe's 
message,  remote  from  each  other  and  relating  co  totally  different 
subjects,  from  what  is  usually  called  the  Monroe  doctrine. 
Much  confusion  of  ideas  has  existed  with  reference  to  its  purport 
and  intended  application,  which  I  shall  not  attempt  on  this  oc- 
casion to  explain.  I  will  only  observe  that  it  has  never,  in  any 
acceptation,  received  a  legislative  confirmation ;  that  it  rests 
upon  its  original  basis,  as  an  executive  declaration,  wise  and 
seasonable  at  the  time  it  was  made,  creditable  to  the  administra- 
tion from  which  it  proceeded,  and  beneficial  to  the  country  and 
the  cause  of  free  government  throughout  the  world. 


The  message  containing  these  declarations  of  President  Monroe 
reached  England,  while  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Canning 
and  the  Prince  de  Polignac,  the  French  Ambassador  at  London, 
was  in  progress.  "  Fortunately,"  says  Mr.  Stapleton,  the  private 
secretary  and  biographer  of  Mr.  Canning,  "just  at  the  moment 
when  these  discussions  were  being  carried  on,  the  message  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  their  Congress  arrived  in  Europe, 
in  which  document  it  was  stated  c  that  any  interference  on  the 
part  of  the  great  powers  of  Europe  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing 
or  controlling  the  destinies  of  the  Spanish  American  states  which 
had  declared  their  independence,  would  be  dangerous  to  the 
peace  and  safety  of  the  United  States,  and  would  be  considered  as 
the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  towards  them.' " 
Mr.  Stapleton  then  claims  that  the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Can- 
ning with  Mr.  Rush,  "  mainly  encouraged,  if  it  did  not  originate 
to  the  government  of  the  United  States  the  idea  of  taking  so 
firm  and  decisive  a  tone,"  and  adds  that,  "  when  coupled  with 
the  refusal  of  Great  Britain  to  take  part  in  a  congress,  it  effectu, 
ally  put  an  end  to  the  project  of  assembling  one  similar  to  those 
which  had  met  at  Yienna,  Aix-la-Chapelle,  Laybach  and 
Yerona." 

The  reception  of  the  presidential  declaration  by  the  English 
public  in  general  and  in  parliament  might  be  called  enthusiastic. 
Mr.  (now  Lord)  Brougham  said  "  the  question  with  regard  to 
South  America  now  was,  he  believed,  disposed  of  or  nearly  so ; 
for  an  event  had  recently  happened,  than  which  no  event  had 
ever  dispersed  greater  joy,  exultation,  and  gratitude  over  all  the 
freemen  of  Europe  /  that  event  which  was  decisive  on  the  sub- 
ject, was  the  language  held  with  respect  to  Spanish  America,  in 
the  speech  or  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to 
the  Congress." 

Mr.  Stapleton,  in  quoting  this  remark  of  Lord  Brougham, 
asks,  "  but  was  not  that  language  which,  in  Mr.  Brougham's 


10 


opinion,  was  decisive  on  the  subject,  in  a  very  great  degree,  if 
not  wholly,  the  result  of  Mr.  Canning's  overture  to  Mr.  Rush  ?" 
Sir  James  Mackintosh,  alluding  to  the  message,  said : 

"  That  wise  government,  in  grave  but  determined  language, 
"  and  with  that  reasonable  but  deliberate  tone  that  becomes  true 
"  courage,  proclaims  the  principles  of  her  policy  and  makes 
61  known  the  cases  in  which  the  care  of  her  own  safety  will  com- 
"  pel  her  to  take  her  up  arms  for  the  defence  of  other  states. 
"  I  have  already  observed  its  coincidence  with  the  declarations 
"  of  England,  which,  indeed,  is  perfect,  if  allowance  be  made 
"  for  the  deeper,  or  at  least  more  immediate  interest  in 
"  the  independence  of  South  America,  which  near  neighbor- 
"  hood  gives  to  the  United  States.  This  coincidence  of  the  two 
"  great  English  commonwealths  (for  so  I  delight  to  call  them, 
"  and  I  heartiiy  pray  that  they  may  be  forever  united  in  the 
"  cause  of  justice  and  liberty),  cannot  be  contemplated  without 
"  the  utmost  pleasure  by  every  enlightened  citizen  of  the  earth." 

"Would  that  words  like  these  were  oftener  heard  in  the  British 
parliament ! 

There  was  one  point  only  in  this  part  of  the  President's  mes- 
sage to  which  Mr.  Canning  excepted.  He  understood  it  to 
deny  not  only  the  right  of  other  foreign  powers  to  interfere  for 
the  recovery  of  the  Spanish  American  Colonies,  but  the  right  of 
the  mother  country  to  continue  her  efforts  for  that  purpose.  He 
thought  it  necessary  to  declare  that  he  did  •  not  assent  to  that 
principle,  and  it  is  quite  doubtful  whether  Mr.  Monroe,  though 
he  used  the  phrase  "  any  European  power,"  meant  to  interfere 
between  Spain  and  her  former  colonies.  Lord  John  Russell, 
however,,  urged  that  if,  after  the  invasion  of  Spain  by  France, 
a  Spanish  army  were  sent  by  Ferdinand  to  re-subjugate  the 
colonies,  inasmuch  as  such  Spanish  army  would  have  been  set 
at  liberty  by  the  French  occupation,  the  expedition  should  be 
regarded  as  virtually  French,  and  as  such  resisted  by  England. 


11 


Such,  as  far  as  Mexico  is  concerned,  is  the  Monroe  doctrine ; 
such  its  origin,  such  its  significance,  such  its  history ;  urged,  all 
but  forced  on  the  United  States  by  the  importunity  of  England 
hailed  with  rapture  in  her  parliament  on  its  announce- 
ment, claimed  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Canning  as  the  work  of  his 
hands,  admitted  to  have  been  decisive  of  the  leading  measure  of 
his  administration,  now  quoted  among  the  studied  insults  which 
the  United  States  have  for  fifty  years  been  offering  to  Great 
Britain ;  another  proof  that  instead  of  being  a  loyal  friend  to 
that  country,  she  has  shown  herself  to  be  a  "  grasping  and  a  bul- 
lying enemy ;"  and  the  "  merchants  of  London"  are  rejoiced  that 
a  French  invasion,  the  precise  movement  which  Mr.  Canning 
in  1823  urged  the  United  States  to  join  him  in  forbidding,  has 
succeeded  in  trampling  in  the  dust  the  policy  which  England 
then  had  so  much  at  heart,  and  to  which  it  is  as  much  her  in- 
terest now  as  ever  to  adhere ! 

Boston,  2d  September,  1863. 


LETTER  OF  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS, 

ON    THE    MOKROE  DOCTRINE. 


Reprinted  from  the  Providence  Journal. 


QUINCY,  August  11, 1837. 
JRev.  Wm.  E.  Charming,  D.  D.,  Newport ,  R.  I. : 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  *  I  rejoice  to  learn  that  you 

have  it  in  contemplation  to  give  the  public  your  ideas  on  the 
appearance  in  the  political  world  of  the  new  republic  of  Texas. 

Mr.  Tuckerman  wrote  to  me  as  you  had  requested,  and  I 
answered  his  letter,  but  he  had  mistaken  the  time  when  the 
transactions  to  which  you  desired  reference  to  be  had,  occurred, 
and  supposed  they  had  happened  during  the  administration  of 
my  father.  My  answer,  therefore,  must  have  been  unsatisfac- 
to  the  object  of  your  inquiries. 

It  was  in  September,  1822,  that  the  events,  to  which  I  al- 
luded in  my  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  25th 
of  May,  1836,  took  place.  It  was  the  time  when  the  Spanish 
government  of  the  Cortes  was  overthrown  by  the  French  in- 
vasion under  the  Duke  d'Angouleme.  Great  Britain  became 
alarmed  lest,  under  the  shelter  of  that  revolution,  the  Island  of 
Cuba  should  pass  into  the  possession  of  France.  The  French 
government  fabricated  or  was  imposed  upon  by  a  report  that 
the  British  cabinet  had  determined  to  send  a  squadron  and 
take  possession  of  the  island.  The  people  of  Havana,  divided 
into  parties  between  the  Cortes  and  the  King,  were  terrified  by 


13 


premonitory  symptoms  of  negro  insurrection,  and  looking  round 
for  a  protector.  There  was  a  party  for  resorting  to  Great 
Britain,  a  party  for  adhering  to  Spain,  and  a  party  for  seeking 
admission  to  the  Korth  American  Union — the  last  of  which  was 
the  strongest.  A  proposition  was  then  made  by  a  secret  agent 
from  them  to  Mr.  Monroe,  to  this  effect — that  they,  by  a  popular 
movement,  of  the  success  of  which  they  had  no  doubt,  would 
declare  the  island  independent  of  Spain,  if  the  government  of  the 
United  States  would  promise  them  protection  and  admit  them 
into  their  Union  under  a  state  constitution,  on  the  model  of 
those  of  our  Southern  states,  and  with  the  understanding  that 
as  the  population  of  the  island  should  increase,  they  should  be 
at  liberty  to  divide  themselves  into  two  states,  and  have  that 
proportion  of  representation  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  As  the  inducement  to  the  American  government  to 
pledge  their  protection,  they  were  assured  that  the  alternative 
would  probably  be  the  prevalence  of  the  party  in  the  island  for 
the  colonial  connection  with  Great  Britian,  and  a  resort  to  her 
for  protection.  "While  this  proposition  was  under  consideration 
of  Mr.  Monroe  and  his  cabinet,  the  French  Minister  at  Wash- 
ington, by  a  verbal,  irresponsible  communication,  not  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  the  only  medium  of  official  intercourse  be- 
tween foreign  ministers  and  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  "but  to  Mr.  Crawford,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as- 
severated that  the  French  government  had  secret  but  positive 
information  that  the  British  government  had  deliberately  de- 
termined to  take  possession  of  Cuba. 

The  answer  of  Mr.  Monroe  to  the  proposition  from  the  Havana 
was,  that  the  friendly  relations  existing  bet  ween  the  people  of  the 
United  States  and  Spain  did  not  permit  them  to  promise  coun- 
tenance or  protection  to  any  insurrectional  movement  against 
her  authority;  Their  advice-  to  the  people  of  Cuba  was  to  ad- 
here as  long  as  possible  to  their  allegiance  to  Spain — that  an 


14: 


attempt  of  either  Great  Britain  or  France  to  occupy  the  island 
would  present  the  proposal  from  the  Havana  under  a  different 
point  of  view,  concerning  which  the  President  was  not  autho- 
rized to  pledge  prospectively  the  action  of  the  United  States, 
but  that  the  people  of  the  Havana  might  be  assured  of  the  deep 
interest,  which,  under  all  the  circumstances  which  might  occur, 
the  American  Government  would  take  in  their  welfare  and 
their  wishes. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  at  least  one  member  of  Mr.  Monroe's 
administration  that  the  occupation  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  by 
Great  Britain  should  be  resisted,  even  at  the  cost  of  a  war.  Their 
unanimous  opinion  was,  that  a  very  explicit  though  confidential 
communication  should  be  made  to  Mr.  Canning,  that  the  United 
States  could  not  see  with  indifference  the  occupation  of  Cuba  by 
any  European  Power  other  than  Spain — and  that  rumors  had 
reached  the  American  government  that  such  an  intention  was 
entertained  by  the  British  cabinet,  which  made  it  necessary  to 
ask  an  explanation  of  their  views. 

Mr.  Rush  was  instructed  accordingly.  Mr.  Canning  disavowed 
emphatically  all  intention  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  to  take 
possession  of  the  island ;  but  avowed  her  determination  not  to 
see  with  indifference  its  occupation  either  by  France  or  the 
United  States,  and  he  told  Mr.  Rush  of  the  squadron  dispatched 
by  Louis  XVIII.  to  the  West  Indies,  without  notifying  him  of 
expedition,  and  of  the  schooling  he  had  ordered  the  British 
Ambassador  at  Paris  to  give  the  French  cabinet  for  that  sin  of 
omission.  Mr.  Canning  then  proposed  that,  by  a  mutual  under- 
standing between  the  British,  French  and  American  Govern- 
ments, without  any  formal  treaty  or  convention,  Cuba  should 
be  left  in  the  quiet  possession  of  Spain,  without  interference  in  the 
government  of  the  island.  This  was  precisely  the  policy  which 
Mr.  Monroe  believed  to  be  bset  adapted  to  the  interests  and  the 
duties  of  the  United  States,  and  he  cheerfully  assented  to  it. 


15 


There  was  no  further  communication  between  him  and  the 
French  government  on  the  subject.  So  far  as  France  was  con- 
cerned, the  arrangement  was  left  to  be  concerted  between 
her  and  Great  Britain. N  The  people  of  the  Island  of  Cuba 
submitted  to  the  government  of  Ferdinand,  restored  by  the 
Duke  d'Angouleme,  and  received  a  viceroy  and  captain-general 
in  the  person  of  Gen.  Yives,  who  had  been  minister  from  Spain 
to  the  United  States — one  of  the  most  upright  and  honorable 
men  with  whom  it  has  ever  been  my  fortune  to  hold  political 
relations.  He  was  precisely  the  man  to  tranquilize  and  concili- 
ate the  submission  of  the  people  of  the  island  to  their  old  gov- 
ernment, and  he  so  effectually  accomplished  thaf  purpose  that 
the  government  of  the  United  States  heard  nothing  further  of 
intended  insurrection  in  Cuba,  during  the  remainder  of  Mr. 
Monroe's  administration  and  the  whole  of  mine. 

All  these  transactions  were  at  the  time  profoundly  secret. 
The  first  public  allusion  to  them  ever  made  was  by  me,  in  the 
speech  of  the  25th  of  May,  1836,  to  the  House  of  Kepresentatives. 
The  circumstances  of  the  times  no  longer  required  absolute 
secrecy.  France,  Spain  and  Britain  had  all  undergone  political 
revolutions,  and  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  British  colonies 
of  this  hemisphere  had  added  tenfold  terrors  to  her  occupation 
of  Cuba,  for  the  meditation  of  our  Southern  statesmen.  I 
partly  raised  the  veil,  therefore,  from  the  negotiations  of  1822, 
to  stay  the  frantic  hand  of  the  Southern  slaveholder,  rushing 
from  the  terror  of  an  avenging  conscience  into  the  arms  of  sym- 
pathizing Slavery  in  Texas. 

*  *  *  •&  *  *  # 

I  arn,  of  course,  your  unalterable  friend, 

J.  Q.  ADAMS. 


16 


THE  BALANCE  OF  POWER  IN  EUROPE, 


Extract  from  a  Speech  of  the  Eight  Hon.  George  Canning  on 
the  Relations  of  Portugal,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  Decem- 
ber 12£A,  1826. 


"  Again,  sir,  is  the  Spain  of  the  present  day,  the  Spain  of 
which  the  statesmen  of  the  times  of  "William  and  Anne  were  so 
Hiuch  afraid  ?  Is  it  indeed  the  nation  whose  puissance  was  ex- 
pected to  shake  England  from  her  sphere  ?  No,  sir ;  it  was  quite 
another  Spain.  It  was  the  Spain  within  the  limits  of  whose 
empire  the  sun  never  set — it  was  Spain  c  with  the  Indies,'  that 
had  excited  the  jealousies  and  alarmed  the  imaginations  of  our 
ancestors. 

"  But  then,  sir,  the  balance  of  power !  The  entry  of  the 
French  army  into  Spain,  disturbed  that  balance,  and  we  ought 
to  have  gone  to  war  to  restore  it !  1  have  already  said,  that 
when  the  French  army  entered  Spain,  we  might,  if  we  chose, 
have  resisted  or  resented  that  measure  by  war.  But  were  there 
no  other  means  than  war  for  restoring  the  balance  of  power  ? 
Is  the  balance  of  power  a  fixed  and  unalterable  standard  ?  Or 
is  it  a  standard  perpetually  varying  as  civilization  advances,  and 
as  new  nations  spring  up  and  take  tneir  place  among  established 
political  communities  ?  The  balance  of  power,  a  century  and  a 
half  ago,  was  to  be  adjusted  between  France  and  Spain,  the 
Netherlands,  Austria  and  England.  Some  years  afterwards, 
Russia  assumed  her  high  station  in  European  politics.  Some 


IT 

years  after  that  again,  Prussia  became,  not  only  a  substantive, 
but  a  preponderating  monarchy.  Thus,  while  the  balance  of 
power  continued  in  principle  the  same,  the  means  of  adjusting 
it  became  more  varied  and  enlarged.  They  became  enlarged  in 
proportion  to  the  increased  number  of  considerable  states — 
in  proportion,  I  may  say,  to  the  number  of  weights  which 
might  be  shifted  into  one  or  the  other  scale.  To  look  to 
the  policy  of  Europe,  in  the  times  of  William  and  Anne,  for  the 
purpose  of  regulating  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe  at  the 
present  day,  is  to  disregard  the  progress  of  events,  and  to  con- 
fuse dates  and  facts,  which  throw  a  reciprocal  light  upon  each 
other. 

"  It  would  be  disengemtous,  indeed,  not  to  admit  that  the 
entry  of  the  French  army  into  Spain  was,  in  a  certain  sense,  a 
disparagement — an  affront  to  the  pride — a  blow  to  the  feelings 
of  England.  And  it  can  hardly  be  supposed,  that  the  govern- 
ment did  not  sympathize,  on  that  occasion,  with  the  feelings  of 
the  people. 

"  But  I  deny  that,  questionable  or  censurable  as  the  act  may  be^ 
it  was  one  that  necessarily  called  for  our  direct  and  hostile  opposi- 
tion. Was  nothing,  then,  to  be  done  ?  Was  there  no  other  mode 
of  resistance,  than  by  a  direct  attack  upon  France,  or  by  a  war,  to 
be  undertaken  on  the  soil  of  Spain  ?  What  if  the  possession 
of  Spain  might  be  rendered  harmless  in  rival  hands — harm- 
less as  regards  us,  and  valueless  to  the  possessors  ?  Might  not 
compensation  for  disparagement  be  obtained,  and  the  policy  of 
our  ancestors  vindicated  by  means  better  adapted  to  the  present 
time  ?  If  France  occupied  Spain,  was  it  necessary,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  consequences  of  that  occupation,  that  we  should  block- 
ade Cadiz  ?  !N"o.  I  looked  another  way.  I  sought  materials  for 
compensation  in  another  hemisphere. 

"  Contemplating  Spain^  such  as  our  ancestors  had  known  her,  1 
resolved  that)  if  France  had  Spain,  it  should  not  ~be  Spain  *  with 
the  Indies?  I  called  the  New  World  into  existence  to  redress  tH& 
balance  of  the  Old>" 


OFFICERS  OF  THE 

LOYAL  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

863    BROADWAY,    WEW    YORK. 


President. 

CHARLES  KING. 

Treasurer. 

MORRIS  KETCHUM. 

Secretary. 

JOHN  AUSTIN  STEVENS,  JR. 

Finance  Committee. 

CHARLES  BUTLER,  CHAIRMAN. 

GEORGE  GRISWOLD,  JACKSON  S.  SCHULTZ, 

'MORRIS  KETCHUM,  A.  C.  RICHARDS, 

CHARLES  H.  MARSHALL,  L.  P.  MORTON, 

HENRY  A.  HURLBUT,  SETH  B.  HUNT, 

THOMAS  N.  DALE,  DAVID  DOWS, 

WILLIAM  A.  HALL,  JOSIAH  M.  FISKE, 

T.  B.  CODDINGTON,  JAMES  McKAYB. 

Publication  Committee* 

FRANCIS  LIEBER,  CHAIRMAN. 
G.  P.  LOWREY,  SECRETARY. 

Executive  Committee. 

WILLIAM  T.  BLODGETT,  CHAIRMAN. 
GEORGE  WARD  NICHOLS,  SECRWARY. 


THE  LOYAL  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY  has  already  issued  a  large 
number  of  Slips  and  Pamphlets  which  have  been  widely  cir- 
culated. Amongst  the  most  important  are  the  following : 

No.  1.  Future  of  the  North  West,  by  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

2.  Echo  from  the  Army. 

3.  Union  Mass  Meeting,  Speeches  of  Brady,  Van  Burcn,  <£c. 

4.  Three  Voices:  the  Soldier,  Farmer  and  Poet. 

5.  Voices  from  the  Army. 

6.  Northern  True  Men. 

7.  Speech  of  Major-General  Butler. 

8.  Separation  ;  War  without  End.     Ed.  Laboulaye. 

9.  The  Venom  and  the  Antidote. 

10.  A  few  words  in  behalf  of  the  Loyal  Women  of  the  United 

States,  by  One  of  Themselves. 

11.  No  Failure  for  the  North.     Atlantic  Monthly . 

12.  Address  to  King  Cotton.     Eugene  Pelletan. 

13.  How  a  Free  People  conduct  a  long  War.     StilU. 

14.  The  Preservation  of  the  Union,  a  National  Economic  Necessity. 

15.  Elements  of  Discords  in  Secessia,  &c.,  &c. 

16.  No  Party  now,  but  all  for  our  Country.     Francis  Lieber. 

17.  The  Cause  of  the  War.      Col  Charles  Anderson. 

18.  Opinions  of  the  early  Presidents  and  of  the  Fathers  of  the 

Kepublic  upon  Slavery,  and  upon  Negroes  as  Men  and  Soldiers. 

19.  (Eirtljeit  nnb  JFreibeit,  u0n   tyermunn  H after. 

20.  Military  Despotism  !  Suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus !  &c. 

21.  Letter  addressed  to  the  Opera-House  Meeting,  Cincinnati, 

by  Col.  Charles  Anderson. 

22.  Emancipation  is  Peace.     By  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

23.  Letter  of  Peter  Cooper  on  Slave  Emancipation. 

24.  Patriotism.     Sermon  by  the  Rev.  Jos.  Fransioli,  of  St.  Peter's 

(Catholic)  Church,  Brooklyn. 

25.  The  Conditions  of  Reconstruction,  by  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

26.  Letter  to  the  President,  by  Gen.  A.  J.  Hamilton,  of  Texas. 

27.  Nullification  and  Compromise  :  a  Retrospective  View. 

28.  The  Death  of  Slavery.    Letter  from  Peter  Cooper  to  Gov.  Seymour. 

29.  Slavery  Plantations  and  the  Yeomanry.     By  Francis  Lieber. 

30.  Rebel  Conditions  of  Peace. 

31.  Address  of  the  Loyal  Leagues. 

32.  War  Power  of  the  President — Summary  Imprisonment — 

by  /.  Heermans. 

33.  The  Two  Ways  of  Treason. 

34.  The  Monroe  Doctrine,  by  Edward  Everett,  &c. 

35.  The  Arguments  of  Secessionists. 

36.  Prophecy  and  Fulfilment.     Letter  of  A.  T.I.  Stephens — Address  of 

E.  W.  Gantt. 


Loyal  Leagues,  Clubs,  or  individuals  may  obtain  any  of  our 
Publications  at  the  cost  price,  by  application  to  the  Executive 
Committee,  or  by  calling  at  the  .Rooms  of  the  Society,  No.  863 
Broadway,  where  all  information  may  be  obtained  relating  to 
the  Society. 


iy,  t 

** 


MR.    JAY'S    LETTER 


ON   THE  RECENT 


RELINQUISHMENT  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE. 


DR.  II.  EDMUND  J.  KOCH, 

Chairman  of  the  Ex.  Com.  of  Adopted  Citizens,  dr. 

SIR  :  I  cordially  thank  jour  Committee  for  the -honor  they 
have  done  me  in  asking  my  assistance  at  the  meeting,  on  the 
31st  instant,  "for  the  purpose  of  supporting  our  Government 
in  reaffirming  the  Monroe  doctrine,  and  for  a  strict  executiori 
of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  of  President  Lincoln  by  the 
military  and  civil  authorities  of  the  United  States.1'  The  un- 
conditional loyalty  and  love  of  country  that  characterize  your 
preamble  and  resolutions  command  my  heartiest  approval. 

Amid  the  excitement  caused  by  domestic  rebellion  we  have 
permitted  the  Government,  without  public  remonstrance,  to 
drift  from  its  ancient  moorings  in  reference  to  European  influ- 
ence on  the  American  continent ;  and  now  that  the  determina- 
tion and  the  ability  of  the  American  people  to  restore  in  its 
completeness  the  national  unity,  the  national  integrity,  and  the 
national  supremacy,  are,  as  we  believe,  definitely  settled,  it  is 
proper  that  we  should  recall  our  olden  principles,  and  take 
care  that,  in  our  intercourse  with  foreign  powers,  there  be  no 
relinquishment  of  our  rightful  claims,  no  yielding  to  for- 
eign pretensions  in  derogation  of  our  honor  or  our  rights.  Let 
me  add,  that  no  class  of  our  people  are  better  fitted  to  appre- 
ciate the  importance  of  preserving  unimpaired  the  Monroe 
doctrine  in  reference  to  the  neighboring  territory  of  Mexico 


and  the  Antilles  than  our  adopted  fellow-citizens  of  European 
birth.  Nor  has  the  discussion  of  the  question  which  you  have 
introduced  been  commenced  a  moment  too  soon.  The  National 
Intelligencer,  at  Washington,  has,  within  the  last  few  days,  made 
the  startling  announcement  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  "  no 
longer  exists,  save  as  a  presidential  precedent,  which  Congress 
declined  to  endorse ;"  and  the  recent  diplomatic  correspond- 
ence of  the  State  Department  shows,  with  the  utmost  frankness, 
that,  in  the  part  we  have  acted  towards  Mexico,  when  attacked 
by  the  triple  alliance  of  England,  France,  and  Spain,  the  Mon- 
roe doctrine  has  been  as  completely  ignored  as  though  it  had 
never  received  the  sanction  of  American  statesmen  nor  the 
hearty  approval  of  the  American  people. 

The  Monroe  doctrine  embraced  these  three  points:  first, 
that  the  American  continents,  in  view  of  the  free  and  inde- 
pendent condition  they  have  assumed,  ought  not  to  be  consid- 
ered as  subjects  of  future  colonization  by  any  European  power  ; 
next,  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  by  those  powers ^ to 
extend  their  system  to  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our 
safety  ;  and,  lastly,  that  we  could  not  view  any  interposition 
by  European  powers  for  oppressing  the  American  Governments, 
or  controlling,  in  any  manner,  their  destiny,  in  any  other  light 
than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  towards 
the  "United  States. 

I  believe  that,  so  far  as  the  North  American  continent  is 
concerned,  and  especially  that  part  of  it  that  lies  between  Texas 
and  the  Isthmus,  the  Monroe  doctrine,  as  thus  declared,  in  all 
three  of  its  points,  is  approved  by  an  overwhelming  majority 
of  the  loyal  citizens  of  our  Republic. 

Now,  what  has  been  the  course  of  our  Government  in  re- 
gard to  the  triple  armed  expedition  against  Mexico  ?  It  appears, 
from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Dayton,  dated  June  5,  1862,  that  he  had 
been  forbidden  even  to  demand  an  explanation  of  its  aim  and 
object,  but  simply  to  say  that  our  Government  would  be  happy 
to  receive  such  explanations  if  voluntarily  tendered.  Upon 
this  polite  announcement,  Mr.  Thouvenel  volunteered  explana- 
tions to  this  effect:  that  the  French  troops  did  not  go  to  Mexico 
to  interfere  with  the  existing  form  of  Government,  nor  to  ac- 


quire  an  inch  of  territory,  nor  to  remain  indefinitely  in  the 
country  ;  and,  thereupon,  Mr.  Dayton  was  advised  from  Wash- 
ington that  "  Mr.  Thouvenel's  assurances  were  eminently  satis- 
factory to  the  President." 

Even  then  there  were  warnings  that  might  have  modified 
that  eminent  satisfaction.  Mr.  Dayton  frankly  declared  that 
it  would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  the  published  opinions  of  the 
commissioners  of  the  three  powers  writh  those  declarations  of 
the  French  Government ;  and  our  minister  to  Mexico,  Mr.  Cor- 
win,  had  written,  on  the  24th  March,  1862,  expressing  his  fears 
that  if  the  allies  should  take  the  field  to  establish  a  government, 
or  it  they  should  get  control  of  the  public  lands,  "  Mexico  would 
thenceforth  be  an  European  colony." 

Now  recall  the  fact,  patent  to  the  whole  world,  that  the  inevit- 
able result  of  the  joint  attack  on  Mexico,  if  not  its  evident  in- 
tent, must  be  to  control  in  some  manner  its  destiny  ;  and  apply 
to  that  fact  the  language  of  President  Monroe,  that  we  could 
not  view  such  an  interposition  on  the  part  of  any  European 
power  a  in  any  other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  un- 
friendly disposition  towards  the  United  States ;"  and  it  would 
seem  as  if  these  words,  uttered  in  1823,  had  been  spoken  in  di- 
rect reference  to  the  present  emergency  ;  for  after  England  and 
Spain  had  retired  from  the  alliance— with  what  degree  of  fairness, 
of  honor,  or  of  glory,  it  is  not  now  necessary  to  inquire — the 
French  Emperor,  writing  from  Fontainebleau,  on  the  3d  of 
July,  1862,  to  General  Forey,  gave  him  his  explanation  of  the 
matter,  which  differs  materially  from  those  wrhich,  when  given 
by  Mr.  Thouvenel  to  Mr.  Dayton,  were  so  eminently  satisfac- 
tory at  Washington.  The  Emperor  says  :  "  We  have  an  inter- 
est in  this — that  the  republic  of  the  United  States  be  powerful 
and  prosperous ;  but  we  have  none  in  this — that  she  should 
seize  possession  of  all  the  Mexican  Gulf,  dominate  from  thence 
the  Antilles,  as  wrell  as  South  America,  and  be  the  sole  dis- 
penser of  the  products  of  the  Xew  World." 

Here  we  have,  somewhat  late  in  the  day,  but  expressed 
with  admirable  distinctness,  one,  at  least,  of  the  motives  of  the 
French  Emperor ;  and  however  excellent  an  argument  may 
be  made  to  prove  his  right  to  feel  an  interest  in  the  future  of 


this  continent,  and  to  exert  his  skill  and  his  power  to  circum- 
scribe the  boundaries  and  limit  the  influence  of  the  American 
republic,  it  is  clear,  without  any  argument  at  all,  that  the 
scheme  of  Louis  Napoleon,  now  being  carried  out  in  Mexico, 
without,  so  far  as  we  know,  one  word  of  remonstrance  from 
the  State  Department,  is  a  matter  of  the  profoundest  interest 
to  the  American  people,  and  especially  to  those  of  them  who 
believe  that  when  this  rebellion  is  crushed  and  slavery  abol- 
ished there  is  before  us  a  career  of  national  greatness  and 
prosperity  that  may  gather  to  us,  not  by  war  and  conquest,  but 
of  their  own  accord  and  by  the  attraction  of  self-interest,  the 
territories  that  adjoin  us  on  the  north  and  on  the  south,  and 
make  us  more  completely  than  at  present  an  ocean-girt  re- 
public. 

From  a  diplomatic  correspondence  with  Mexico,  not  long 
since  published  in  our  newspapers,  it  wrould  appear  that  at  that 
time  Mexico  thought  she  had  reason  to  complain,  not  of  a 
want  of  friendly  sympathy,  but  of  much  more  than  that — of  a 
disregard  of  impartial  neutrality ;  that  she  complained  that 
we  were  permitting  the  French  Emperor  to  ship  warlike  stores 
from  New  York  to  assist  him  in  the  conquest  of  her  territory, 
in  dereliction  of  the  very  principles  which  we  had  complained 
that  England  had  violated  toward  ourselves. 

Whether  these  complaints  of  Mexico  were  in  any  respect 
well  founded,  I  do  not  know;  but  the  fact  that  such  complaints 
were  warmly  urged  seemed  to  indicate  that  our  position  in 
regard  to  her  invasion  by  France  has  been  one,  at  least,  of  cold 
indifference. 

If  such  indifference  had  been  the  imperative  result  of  our 
own  exigencies  in  regard  to  the  rebellion,  the  American  people 
might  be  justly  content  that  the  welfare  of  our  own  republic 
should  not  be  hazarded  by  an  ill-timed  adherence  to  the 
Monroe  doctrine  at  a  critical  moment.  But  this  idea  is  con- 
tradicted by  the  fact  that,  while  the  preparations  of  the  triple 
alliance  were  being  made,  repeated  assurances  were  given  by 
the  State  Department  to  our  ministers  abroad,  that  "  the  end  of 
the  war  was  in  sight ;  "  that  "  there  would  be  a  short  and  rapid 
series  of  successes  over  a  disheartened  conspiracy,  and  then  all 


would  be  over."  And  the  very  letter  (April  22, 1862)  that  con- 
veyed to  Mr.  Dayton  the  satisfaction  of  the  Government  at  the 
assurances  of  Mr.  Thouvenel,  advised  him  of  the  most  gratify- 
ing indications  of  the  early  restoration  of  the  peace  of  the 
country. 

Mr.  Dayton  had  been  recently  assured  also  by  the  Secretary, 
on  the  26th  March,  that  "  Charleston  cannot  long  hold  out,  and 
the  fall  of  Savannah  is  understood  to  be  a  question  of  days,  not 
of  weeks.  Mobile  cannot  stand  after  the  fall  of  these  and  iNew 
Orleans." 

It  is  clear  from  these  reiterated  assurances,  enforced  as  they 
were  by  elaborate  reviews  of  our  military  position,  that  the 
standard  of  our  nationality  was  not  lowered,  that  the  Monroe 
doctrine  was  not  given  to  the  winds,  and  that  Mr.  Dayton  was 
not  forbidden  to  demand  explanations  of  the  meaning  of  the 
expedition  against  Mexico  from  any  real  conviction  on  the  part 
of  the  Secretary  that  the  necessities  of  our  position  com- 
pelled us  to  don  the  mantle  of  humility,  and  to  advise  Louis 
Napoleon,  with  bated  breath,  that  we  awaited  in  silence  his  im- 
perial pleasure,  and  wTould  receive  with  gladness  such  explana- 
tions as  he  might  be  pleased  to  offer.  The  explanations  he  con- 
descended to  give,  which  did  not  satisfy  our  minister — the 
eminent  satisfaction  they  afforded  at  "Washington,  notwith- 
standing the  fears  of  Mr.  Corwin — and  the  real  explanation  as 
subsequently  given  by  the  Emperor  to  Gen.  Forey — constitute 
a  page  in  our  history  which,  happily,  is  without  a  precedent  in 
the  past,  and  should  be  without  a  counterpart  in  the  future. 

The  Monroe  doctrine  does  not  imply,  as  some  seem  to  sup- 
pose, any  interference  with  the  just  rights  of  foreign  powers, 
but  simply  a  due  regard  to  our  national  welfare.  Our  honor- 
able and  gallant  fellow-citizen,  Gen.  Clay,  whose  bravery  in 
the  defence  of  free  speech  in  Kentucky  in  olden  times  will  al- 
ways command  admiration,  recommended,  in  a  well-known 
diplomatic  letter,  published  by  the  State  Department — a  letter 
in  which  some  passages  were  omitted,  but  this  recommendation 
carefully  retained — that  "  money  and  men  should  be  sent  into 
Ireland,  India,  and  all  the  British  dominions  all  over  the  world, 
to  stir  up  revolt,"  &c. 


Of  such  a  recommendation,  notwithstanding  the  significant 
sanction  it  then  received  by  its  official  promulgation,  and  not- 
withstanding the  yet  more  significant  sanction  it  has  very  re- 
cently received  in  his  reappointment,  I  believe  the  American 
people,  almost  to  a  man,  will  disapprove,  as  in  utter  violation 
of  the  Laws  of  Nations,  and  at  variance  with  the  dignity  and 
the  principles  of  a  Christian  people.  But  a  recognition  of 
the  Monroe  doctrine  involves  no  such  grievous  wrong  to  a 
foreign  nation  to  be  secretly  inflicted  in  time  of  peace ;  it  re- 
quires only  an  open  and  honorable  avowal  of  principles  that 
for  forty  years  have  been  regarded  as  a  component  part  of 
American  policy,  and  which  we  believe  cannot  now  be  surren- 
dered, as  they  have  been  in  the  case  of  France  and  Mexico, 
without  a  diminution  of  our  national  dignity,  and  a  derogation 
from  that  international  respect  which  we  have  been  accustomed 
to  command  in  Europe. 

It  is  the  aim  of  the  rebel  sympathizers  in  our  midst — of  the 
party  that  has  adopted  the  name  and  the  symbol  of  Copper- 
heads— to  impair  and  destroy,  as  far  as  possible,  that  pride  of 
nationality  which,  from  the  birth  of  our  republic,  Americans 
have  been  taught  to  cherish.  How  completely  they  have  suc- 
ceeded in  extinguishing  all  pride  of  country  and  every  senti- 
ment of  honor  in  their  own  breasts,  has  been  disclosed  to-day 
in  the  remarkable  letter  of  Lord  Lyons.  The  leaders  of  the 
Peace  Democrats  in  New  York  gathered  around  the  aristocratic 
representative  of  the  British  Government,  not  to  protest  against 
the  burning  of  American  ships  by  English  pirates,  but  to  in- 
voke his  lordship's  assistance  in  a  plot  for  foreign  intervention 
in  our  domestic  affairs,  anticipating  the  humiliation  and  dis- 
memberment of  the  republic.  Well  may  the  Southern  rebels, 
waging  open  war  against  the  Government,  recoil  with  scorn 
from  the  mean  treachery  of  their  cowardly  allies  at  the  North  ! 
But  it  becomes  the  Administration,  in  view  of  so  pitiable  an 
exhibition  of  American  degeneracy,  to  maintain  with  the  more 
earnest  fidelity,  at  home  and  abroad,  that  high  national  tone 
which  befits  the  dignity  of  a  nation,  the  brightness  of  whose 
career,  temporarily  checked  by  internal  treachery  and  what  is 
now  termed  "  foreign  neutrality,"  will  yet  culminate  in .  a 
splendor  that  shall  indicate  to  the  world  the  star  of  empire. 


I  have  left  myself,  sir,  no  room  to  touch  upon  the  other 
topic  of  your  meeting— the  President's  Emancipation  Policy— 
upon  which  I  will  only  remark  that  I  doubt  the  expediency  of 
discussing  it.  With  or  without  the  Proclamation,  in  a  war 
waged  by  slavery  against  the  life  of  the  nation,  slavery  was 
bound  to  die,  in  accordance  with  the  warning  once  eloquently 
given  by  Mr.  Seward  when,  admitting  that,  under  the  bond  of 
the  Constitution,  it  was  entitled  to  its  pound  of  flesh,  he  de- 
clared that,  if  it  drew  one  drop  of  blood,  its  life  was  forfeit. 

Not  by  single  drops,  nor  on  a  single  battle-field,  but  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi,  and  from  the  Potomac  to  the 
Kio  Grande,  has  slavery  shed,  in  torrents,  the  life-blood  of  our 
best  and  bravest.  I  agree  with  Mr.  Seward  that  its  life  is  for- 
feit and  that  slavery  must  die.  With  that  conviction,  clearly 
foreseen  and  warnirigly  declared  by  many  slaveholders  in  ad- 
vance of  the  rebellion  as  its  inevitable  result,  I  am  content, 
without  caring  to  discuss  the  questions  raised  by  sympathizers 
with  rebellion,  upon  the  terms  of  the  Proclamation. 

Tens  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  brave  soldiers  are 
fighting  to  preserve  the  life  of  the  republic,  and  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  their  children's  children ;  and  although  in  our 
opinion,  and  in  that  of  Southern  statesmen  before  the  war 
began,  "the  end  will  bej  abolition,"  it  is  a  wicked  device 
of  our  enemies  to  pretend  that  abolition  is  the  object  of 
the  war.  I  am  aware  that  this  doctrine,  although  absolutely 
refuted  by  the  President  in  his  Messages  and  in  his  letter  to 
Mr.  Greeley,  has  been  apparently  sanctioned  by  the  official  ut- 
terances of  Mr.  Thurlow  Weed,  who,  while  a  commissioner  in 
Europe,  accredited  from  the  State  Department,  is  reported  to 
have  said,  in  London,  so  long  since  as  3d  February,  1862  : 

"  As  to  the  prospects  of  the  future,  the  Admistration  not 
only  desired,  but  expected,  emancipation  as  the  fruit  and  result 
of  the  war ;  slavery  was  and  would  be  burned  out  of  every  acre 
and  rood  of  territory  conquered  from  the  rebels,  so  that,  by  pro- 
cess of  war  and  by  legal  enactments,  if  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment were  successful,  slavery  would  cease  to  exist." 

Such  utterances,  although  made  with  high  official  sanction, 
are  calculated  to  mislead  the  people,  and  seem — -without,  as  I 


believe,  the  shadow  of  justice — to  convict  the  President  of  insin- 
cerity, by  intimating  that  a  desire  for  emancipation  was  influ- 
encing his  conduct  of  the  war  for  long  months  prior  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Proclamation  as  a  matter  of  pure  military  ne- 
cessity. The  war  is  prosecuted  by  the  President  in  fulfillment 
of  his  Constitutional  oath  to  preserve  the  unity  and  enforce  the 
laws  of  the  republic ;  and  if,  when  our  national  integrity  is 
restored,  it  shall  be  found  that  slavery  has  received  its  death 
blow,  we  need  not  seek  for  the  cause  of  its  overthrow  in  the 
cabinet  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  but  recognize  the  truth  proclaimed,  in 
1850,  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Boyce,  of  South  Carolina,  that  if  the 
slaveholders  should  secede  from  the  Union  the  institution  of 
slavery  would  be  doomed,  and  that  the  great  God,  in  their 
blindness,  would  have  made  them  the  instruments  of  its  destruc- 
tion. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

J0ffisr  JAY. 


194  FIFTH  AVENUE,  ) 

:NEW  YORK,  March  30,  1863.  f 


